Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Trade Union Act, 1871 (Section 12)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will request the Chief Registrar to make a special report with regard to his responsibilities under Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, in so far as they relate to trades union voting papers and other documents.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): The Chief Registrar is already required to report annually on his work under the Act and when appropriate his annual report refers to matters arising under Section 12.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend agree that rank and file trade unionists are entitled as of right to have trade union business, including elections, conducted honestly and properly, and that the only external check against possible fraud by trade union officials is the right of the Chief Registrar to prosecute under Section 12? Will he bear in mind that in 1958 the Chief Registrar reported that his duties in this respect were impeded by the refusal of certain trade unions to provide him with the relevant documents and other necessary evidence? Will he bear in mind the national importance of this subject and, in view of the great public anxiety in this matter, will he take the necessary steps to ensure that the rights of the rank and file trade unionists may be better protected?

Mr. Hare: I am advised that the powers under Section 12 are designed to protect the property of the unions and would not be appropriate for the sort of situation which my hon. Friend has in mind. In answer to his general point, I am studying the recent judgment in this case, together with all other factors, and, obviously, I have no more to say about it at the moment.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the ninety years which have elapsed since the 1871 Act, the clean decency of the British trade union movement has commended itself to the whole world and that now that there has been a smear inflicted on it by a totally unrepresentative clique of people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is difficulty about this. I am not certain what the "smear" is, but this judgment is the subject matter of an appeal.

Mr. Lee: I was merely following what the Minister was saying. I was about to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that we on this side of the House are always extremely concerned at these matters; that we shall do our very best to ensure that the public responsibilities of the unions are met; and that the best way to do that is to allow the T.U.C. to go on with its work.

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that we have to look at this matter calmly and in its true perspective. We do not want to take one incident as being typical. This matter has caused a great deal of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to the country, and we have to give it serious consideration.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the judgment given in the case of Byrne and Chapple v. Foulkes and Haxell, how many breaches of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, insofar as they relate to trade unions voting papers, have been reported by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in the past ten years.

Mr. Hare: The Chief Registrar has made no reports on this subject. The purpose of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, is, of course, to protect the property of a trade union. I said this earlier in answer to a supplementary


question. This was not an issue in this case.

Mr. Marsh: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be extremely unfortunate if this unique and isolated incident were used as a basis to mount an ill-informed attack on the trade union movement in general? Will he take steps, by a public announcement, to make clear to the country at large that this is isolated and highly unusual?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that anyone is making attacks on the trade unions. All I have said is that these are serious matters. Both sides of the House share concern about them. We have to examine the whole problem, not in the light of this one incident, but in the context of the position as a whole.

Newcast Foundries Limited, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour for how long his Department has been trying to find suitable workers to fill vacancies at Newcast Foundries Limited, of Newcastle-under-Lyme; and after what period of time he will be prepared to consider an application for labour permits for foreign workers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): There are at present sixteen unfilled vacancies with this firm which were notified to the employment exchange on 18th May. We are now prepared to consider an application from the firm to employ suitably qualified foreign workers.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary very much for the good work he has achieved so rapidly in adopting a more reasonable attitude to these applications, may I ask if he will comment on the fact that so much difficulty is being found by his Department, in view of the unemployment that exists, in trying to meet the demands from this firm for workers in the foundries?

Mr. Green: Naturally, we seek to fill vacancies wherever possible locally. The vacancies are circulated in addition, of course, to other employment exchanges but there is difficulty in filling these places as there is a shortage of lodging

accommodation, as I expect the hon. Member quite understands. It takes perhaps a fortnight to establish the fact that there are no home citizens available to fill these jobs. It seldom, if ever, takes more than a month, and, as soon as that has been established, we consider applications to employ foreign labour.

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour for the latest date for which figures are available, how many unemployed persons and how many unfilled vacancies there were in Newcastle-under-Lyme; how many of the persons unemployed were disabled; how many of the vacancies available were in foundries; and what difficulties were being encountered in trying to fill them.

Mr. Green: On 12th June, 1961, there were 302 males and 140 females registered as unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme, of whom 85 males and 23 females were disabled persons.
Unfilled vacancies on 5th July, 1961, were 563 for males and 192 for females, of which 22 for males were in foundries. There are very few foundry workers registered as unemployed and vacancies, particularly for skilled workers, are not easy to fill.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for those figures, may I ask if he has noted the fact that there still remains a residue of registered disabled workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme who for a long period have been unable to find work? Will he endeavour to use the good offices of his Department to try to bring to Newcastle-under-Lyme some special form of employment that would enable these disabled workers to have a future?

Mr. Green: I should like to assure the hon. Member, as I think he knows, that this is a matter very close to the heart of the Department. I believe it is also true and fair to say that employers generally try to fulfil their obligations and duties towards these disabled workers. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to know that there are twenty-six people in this area who are in section 2 of the Disabled Register for whom only sheltered employment is possible or suitable.

Apprenticeships

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the percentage of boys and girls who having been recorded as apprentices in his Department's apprentice statistics subsequently have their apprenticeships terminated.

Mr. Hare: I am afraid that the information is not available.

Mr. Boyden: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the error in the figures given by youth employment officers to his Department when they made up the original figure? Is is not based on the report by boys and girls who go to the youth employment officer because they think they have apprenticeships offered to them and in fact have not?

Mr. Hare: I believe that the figures are pretty accurate. I think that the hon. Member knows how difficult it is to achieve supreme accuracy in this matter. Our figures show that where wastage is due to premature terminations, this is more than offset by late entrants to apprenticeship. I think that, broadly speaking, we can rely on these figures.

Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree that three years ago the Carr Committee recommended that he should have far more complete statistics of the number of people in apprenticeship training and so on? What is he doing to carry out that recommendation?

Mr. Hare: The main task of the Youth Employment Service is to get on with the job of advising young people in finding jobs and apprenticeships. If we put on the Service this heavy demand for extra statistics, the officers would be taken away from the crucial job of work which they have to do at the moment.

Street Newsvendors

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to include street newsvendors within the wages and holiday provisions laid down by the Retail Newsagency, Tobacco and Confectionery Wages Council and if he proposes to amend Statutory Instrument, 1960/1 (R.N.T. (26)) accordingly.

Mr. Green: Minimum remuneration for street newsvendors has been provided ever since the Council was set up but these workers are not covered by any holiday provisions. My right hon. Friend has no power either to amend the relevant Order without proposals from the Council, or to require the Council to make particular proposals.

Mr. Gough: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is only because of the method by which these men are paid that they appear to be self-employed, but that in fact they are actually employed by the big newspapers? Would he, therefore, agree that they are entitled to holidays with pay and other benefits? Will he look into the matter further?

Mr. Green: As my hon. Friend knows—and I agree with him—there are two types of person involved in this form of occupation. I think it a fact that one street newsvendor raised the question of holidays with the Council when it published its first proposals in 1949. The Council did not feel able to prescribe holidays with pay at that time. Since then no further representations have been received from these people, but, if my hon. Friend has further representations to make, I shall be glad to receive them.

Shipyard, Birkenhead (Demarcation Dispute)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is now taking to end the inter-union demarcation dispute at Cammell Laird's shipbuilding yard at Birkenhead.

Mr. Hare: The General Council of the Trades Union Congress arranged a meeting of the two unions concerned in this dispute on 6th July. They agreed to seek clarification of an earlier arbitration award dealing with work claimed by each of them. I have arranged for the arbitrator to hear representatives of the unions on Friday next.

Mr. Pannell: Whilst welcoming that statement, may I ask if my right hon. Friend does not agree that these continued disputes are completely destroying confidence in the British shipbuilding industry? Does he not consider that there is a duty on his Department to take


positive steps to prevent their recurrence instead of intervening at a late stage when the damage has already been done?

Mr. Hare: I agree with my hon. Friend about the very serious effects which these disputes have. I think that they do great damage to the industry as a whole, as well as, of course, to the individual men who work in the industry. I should point out that there is a demarcation procedure agreement which has been agreed by the unions. I hope that they can make more use of it. As a result of the meeting on 6th July, a member of the General Council of the T.U.C. is to act as chairman of a meeting between the executives of the two unions. The object is to go over the whole question of the relationship of these unions and the operation of the procedure agreement dealing with demarcation issues. No date has been fixed for the meeting, but I hope that useful results will flow from it.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise—surprising though it may seem to him—how relieved we on this side of the House are to see him back again and how glad we are that we could prevent his stand-in from doing any damage while he was away?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to discover how that arises from the Answer.

Laboratories, Technical Colleges and University Departments (Safety)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what action is taken by the Factory Inspectorate, and on what basis, to ensure safe conditions in the laboratories of technical colleges and university departments; and whether he will take steps to extend the scope of the Factory Inspectorate in this respect.

Mr. Hare: The closest contact is maintained between my inspectors and Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in advising local education authorities and technical colleges on these questions. The Factory Inspectorate is also helping to prepare a code of practice for protection against radiation hazards in research establishments.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister agree with me that that Answer is not

completely satisfactory? As long ago as 1949 the Gowers Report suggested that legislation should be framed to cover students in colleges of this kind. Does he not recall that we discussed the matter in Committee on the Factories Bill some two or three years ago? Will he not accede to the second half of my Question and promise to bring in legislation to cover these students?

Mr. Hare: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. My information is that the present arrangements are working satisfactorily. My advice is available and is readily sought in both colleges and universities. Unless the hon. Member has information which I do not possess, I do not think that he is justified in asking for legislation.

Dr. Stross: On a point of order. In view of the fact that I am not content with that answer, I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment on the first possible occasion.

School Leavers, Central West Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers there will be in Central West Fife at the end of the current school year; and how many vacancies exist for them now at the local employment exchanges.

Mr. Green: About 335 boys and 350 girls. On 5th July there were at the local Youth Employment Offices 59 notified vacancies for boys, plus an unspecified number of vacancies with the National Coal Board, and 81 for girls.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister recognise that this reveals a deplorable situation in which the prospects for boys and girls in this area are certainly worse than the average of the United Kingdom and worse than for Scotland as a whole? Can he give any hope that there will be some amelioration of the situation very soon? Does he recognise that boys and girls in their tender adolescent years are having to leave these areas for the Midlands and the South and that parents are desperately anxious that the Government should do something about it?

Mr. Green: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern and I am sure that


he realises that he is not the only one to have that concern. It might be some comfort to him to know that, despite the figures which have been given, all but five of the 561 Easter school leavers were working by mid-May. It is therefore possible to misinterpret the figures which I have just given. If one looks back on the recent history, one finds that practically all the school leavers found employment in the area. But I realise his anxiety, all the same. Perhaps he would like to know that the National Coal Board, for example, the Royal Naval Dockyard and the Central Electricity Board, and so on, are all arranging to increase their intake of young people.

Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that all hon. Members are not only concerned about whether these young people obtain employment. We are very much concerned about the kind of employment which they obtain. The graph shows that there is nothing like sufficient of them obtaining skilled work or work which requires technical training of any type.

Mr. Green: I appreciate the general problem of the area and we are doing our best about it. It is, of course, true that if some travel to work can be accepted the prospects of a range of employment, as well as mere employment, are very much wider.

Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Countries and Colonial Territories)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of his speech at the International Labour Conference in Geneva, when he spoke of the acute shortage of men with ability and experience in labour affairs, with special regard to developing countries, he will consider inviting more trade unionists from the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to this country to study British labour relations under the auspices of his Department.

Mr. Hare: I have made places available on industrial relations courses for trade unionists from Commonwealth countries and Colonial Territories in Africa. I am shortly expecting nominations from them for the next course which will be held in the autumn.

Mr. Boardman: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to continue to bear in mind that in these developing countries labour relations are of the utmost importance and that it would be a great tragedy if the enormous potential of the Federation were to be undermined through inexperienced trade union leaders?

Mr. Hare: I very much agree with the hon. Member. That was the burden of the speech which I made in Geneva to which he referred.

Industrial Accidents

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Labour what special efforts he proposes to arrest the rapidy increasing number of industrial accidents, particularly among young people.

Mr. Hare: I am considering with representatives of employers and trades unions what more can be done to promote safe methods of work and in particular to give young people sound safety training.

Mr. Boardman: In view of the fact that the accident rate is increasing, despite reasonable precautions being taken, does the Minister agree that the extensive use of cinema films in works canteens showing the dangers in modern industry is probably the best way of getting this across at any rate to the younger people in industry?

Mr. Hare: That is a useful suggestion which I will certainly consider. It is not only a question of doing this when the young person has arrived in the factory and taken up his job. More can be done in schools and colleges, and here my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education intends to help to do more than is already being done. But I still think—and the hon. Member's idea is a contribution to it—that the main work is for all of us to preach the need for promoting safety-mindedness in industry. Individually we can all make contributions.

School Leavers (Apprenticeships)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement on the prospects for those leaving school this summer so far as apprenticeships and other training opportunities are concerned; and


whether there is any prospect of an increase in training facilities commensurate with the large increase in school leavers.

Mr. Hare: Preliminary reports covering the first few months of this year—and I must emphasise their provisional nature—which I have received from the Youth Employment Service indicate that the number of apprenticeships and learnerships is keeping pace with the substantial increase in the number of school leavers starting work.

Mr. Prentice: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he will make a further statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess bearing in mind that we shall rise about the time that a great number of these school leavers will be leaving school? Will he bear in mind the great anxiety on both sides of the House about this, particularly in such areas as Scotland and the North-East Coast, where local unemployment is likely to aggravate the problem and to prevent training places from being found for these young people?

Mr. Hare: I emphasised in my Answer the preliminary nature of these reports. I do not want to mislead the House, but frankly I am relieved that the reports which I am receiving from every region of the country are far more satisfactory than perhaps some of the critics thought they would be.

Miss Herbison: The Minister said that the reports which he is receiving from every region of the country are far more satisfactory than he expected. Does that apply to Scotland? In particular, does it apply to Lanarkshire, where unemployment is high, where the last pit closes tomorrow in one area and where many jobs are folding up this week-end?

Mr. Hare: It does not apply to Lanarkshire, but it applies to Scotland as a whole. We have to be very careful. I do not want to mislead the House and I prefer to wait until I can give sound figures, but my general impression, which I thought the House would like, is that we are getting on with this job rather better than some people feared.

Mr. R. Carr: In considering the figures from different areas, will the Minister

take a special look at what is being done in the Wakefield area to see whether that might provide a lesson as to how training opportunities can be improved in other areas within the existing framework?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend has already discussed this matter with me. The example set by the Wakefield area is one from which all of us could benefit.

Factory Inspectorate (Strength)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour what is the present strength of the Factory Inspectorate, in both its general and specialised branches; and whether, in view of the increase in industrial accidents, he will make a substantial increase in the establishment to enable workplaces to be inspected more frequently.

Mr. Hare: On 3rd July, 1961, in addition to the chief inspector and four deputy chief inspectors, 339 inspectors were employed in the general inspectorate and 71 in the specialist branches. I keep the establishment of the Factory Inspectorate under constant review and I shall certainly bear this factor in mind when I consider the forthcoming Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories.

Mr. Prentice: Are there not a number of urgent reasons for increasing the establishment? Does the Minister agree that the increase in accidents is alarming and that the frequency of inspection is one aspect of the problem which is under his direct control? Does he agree that we are inspecting our industrial establishments far less frequently than the standards laid down by the I.L.O.? Does he also agree that the recent regulations issued by his Department have increased the burden on the inspectorate? For all those reasons, does he think that there is a chance that he will increase the establishment in the near future?

Mr. Hare: I cannot make any promise about that. In 1960, of the 219,526 factories on our register, 100,518 were visited.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not a fact that the I.L.O. recommendation some years ago, which was endorsed by this country, laid down a standard of one visit per year for every factory? The figures which the Minister has just given represent


about one visit every two years or even less.

Mr. Hare: I note what the hon. Member said, but although we accepted the recommendation at the time, our binding obligations relate to the 1947 Convention and not to the recommendation.

BUILDING OPERATIONS (ACCIDENTS)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to publish an analysis of the reasons for the increase of accidents in building operations during 1960.

Mr. Hare: An analysis of these accident figures, with a commentary, will be published in the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories in September.

Mr. Boyden: Would not it be more convenient if that Report were published now? Is not it a serious matter? Are not the Government concerned about the activities of the building industry? Are not excessive speculation and excessive profits one reason why there are accidents in the industry?

Mr. Hare: I do not know about that. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have already expressed my great concern about the increase in accidents. It is because I want the matter to be considered thoroughly, and because I want to see that the work is not skimped, that a little extra time has been taken. The Report will be published in September.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Repair Yard, Evanton (Sale)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in disposing of the establishment at Evanton, Ross-shire, he consulted the Minister of Labour about employment prospects in that area.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Before selling the Repair Yard at Evanton the Admiralty had consultations on the employment aspects with the Distribution of Industry Panel for Scotland, on which the Minis-

try of Labour is represented. We also consulted the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office.

Mr. Pannell: Does not the Minister agree that in disposing of the site to someone who was just marginally the highest tenderer he reduced the employment prospects in the area, as it has been reported to me, by about 30 or 35? Is not this worth looking at?

Mr. John MacLeod: Before the Minister replies, is it not rather surprising—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be later, but the Minister must have a chance to reply.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Two of the tenderers had expressed the intention to develop the site industrially, and the panel which looked into the matter knew of no reason to regard either as likely to give more or less employment than the other. I think that some of the facts given are perhaps incorrect. I have every reason to believe that the present purchaser will give as much employment locally as the other person might have done.

Mr. MacLeod: Is it not rather surprising that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has not the graciousness to inform the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty—myself—that he intended to put this Question on the Order Paper and that at no time has he ever asked me personally for my support, although my interest in industrial development in the Highlands is well known? Further, is the Minister aware that I have had a letter from the purchaser stating that one large hangar is to be used by an industrialist, a group of workshop buildings has been acquired for development, one of the large buildings is being moved to Evanton to expand an existing business
and I have retained a further croup of buildings with floor space of about 18,000 sq. ft. for industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not allow block quotations from documents during Questions.

Mr. MacLeod: I was pointing out that the hon. Member for Leeds, West must be pleased about this extra employment which is to be provided by this purchaser.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If that was not a question, I should not allow block quotations in a point of order.

Mr. Pannell: In view of that attack upon me, may I make it clear that at no time have I been interested in the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod). As the Civil Lord knows, my concern has been in the interests of a constituent of mine, a tenderer who considered that he was disadvantaged. He was largely disadvantaged because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on behalf of one of his friends.

Mr. MacLeod: Surely I am entitled to object most strongly to that and to ask the hon. Member to withdraw it, because what he said is not the case at all.

Mr. Speaker: All implications are out of order at Question Time, and I require the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to withdraw that part of the expression which he used.

Mr. Pannell: I find myself in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in knowing what you wish me to withdraw, because I was subjected to an attack from the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Let me assist the hon. Member, and express the hope that we can get on with Questions. I do not quote his exact words, but he said something to the effect that some obstacle had been raised by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on behalf of one of his friends. It is that expression which I require him to withdraw.

Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if I substitute the word "constituent" for the word "friend", would that meet your wishes?

Mr. MacLeod: On a point of order. I strongly object even to that. There is no foundation for that.

Mr. Speaker: I was considering whether that met the requirement. I think that it does.

Disposal of Property and Plant (Procedure)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent it is the practice of his Department to accept always the highest tender for properties

and plant to be disposed of; and to what extent he consults other Departments in order to safeguard the wider public interest.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty always sells at the highest price unless there are special reasons in the wider public interest for preferring some lower offer. Because of these wider interests the Admiralty invariably consults other Departments before disposal. Properties suitable for industrial use are considered by the Board of Trade—in the light of its statutory responsibilities under the Local Employment Act, 1960—in concert with the Ministry of Labour and any other interested Departments such as the Scottish Office.

Mr. Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no wider public interest was served on this occasion, only the question of price?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We believed that the employment probabilities of both competing tenderers were equal. The Board of Trade judged the same. Therefore, we took notice of the advantage of the taxpayers and accepted the highest offer.

Frigates (Sale to Portugal)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what sum has been paid by the Government of Portugal for two Bay class frigates of the British Navy recently sold to that Government; and how much the refitting and modernising of these warships prior to sale cost.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The purchase price of ships sold to other navies is a confidential matter between Her Majesty's Government and the purchaser. The Answer to the second part of the Question is that these ships were to be refitted not by the Admiralty but by private negotiations between the purchaser and a British shipbuilding firm.

Mr. Brockway: Perhaps the Civil Lord will tell me whether the purchase price took into account any restriction upon the use of the ships and whether the same restriction applied to these ships as applied to the provision of arms to Portugal. I hope that he can tell us that the ships are not to be used for


conveying troops to any of the Portuguese colonies or for any operation on the coasts of those colonies.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It has been made clear in many debates and Questions in the House that these ships were sold in order to replace over-age destroyers which were being scrapped and to allow Portugal to meet her N.A.T.O. obligations.

Naval and Civil Establishments (Security)

Commander Courtney: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what basic differences exist in the application of security regulations to Admiralty civil establishments and naval shore establishments, respectively; and whether he is satisfied that there is no weakness in the security system resulting from such differences.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There are no basic differences in the regulations applied to naval and civil establishments respectively.

Commander Courtney: I thank the Civil Lord for that reply. I wonder if he can satisfy the House on two further points. First, is it correct that the captain in charge, Portland, before this particular incident recommended that Henry Houghton should not be employed in Her Majesty's dockyard? Secondly, in view of the serious breach of security in the Admiralty civil establishment, is it not odd that two naval officers have been named but not, as yet, any civilians?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On the first point, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, it is undesirable to try to put a gloss or an explanation on the summary which has already been laid before the House. On the second point, two out of the three persons named were civilians at the time. One is a civilian. One was an ex-naval officer who had been a civilian for some time before his employment. It is true that the third was a serving naval officer at that time.

Security (Romer Committee's Report)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the allegation made in 1954 that Henry

Houghton was taking secret papers out of the Underwater Detection Establishment at Portland, as stated in paragraph 4 of the summary of the Romer Committee's findings, was true.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As I said on 5th July, I cannot elaborate on the summary of the Romer Committee's main findings which has been circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does the Civil Lord recollect telling me on 20th June that in fact Houghton never had any access to secret information? Must not that fact have been perfectly well known to his immediate superior, to whom this allegation was made? In that case, does it not render that person very much more culpable than if in fact Houghton had had such access, because in that case he might merely have been taking the stuff home to do a little homework? In those circumstances, can my hon. Friend say whether this junior official has been suspended from duty prior to the disciplinary action which no doubt it is intended to bring against him?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, all these three persons are the subject of disciplinary proceedings at the moment and it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of those proceedings.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what disciplinary measures have been taken arising from the Report of the Romer Committee.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the scathing comments made by the Romer Committee, why is it taking the Admiralty so long to decide what it is to do? Is there any reason for the delay? Surely, all the facts are known by now—or I should hope so.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it only right that people who have been accused should be given a proper opportunity to defend themselves, and make counter-statements. We are looking into the matter, and hope in due course to make a statement of our reply.

Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the words "due course"?


When does he expect to be able to make a statement?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I imagine, probably two or three weeks—something of that sort of period.

Hospital, Gillingham (Equipment and Stores)

Mr. Burden: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what happened to the medical equipment and stores at the Royal Naval Hospital, Gillingham, when it was vacated by the Royal Navy.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: In accordance with the normal practice when an establishment is closed down, all the equipment and stores were carefully surveyed. Serviceable medical equipment and stores were either transferred to other R.N. medical establishments or returned to R.N. storage depots for further use. Unserviceable equipment or stores, including small quantities of drugs whose limited life had expired were destroyed, or were dealt with as scrap. Fixed hospital fittings were handed over to the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that allegations were made by persons who were employed at the time of the hand-over of the hospital to the National Health Service that they had burned or otherwise disposed of drugs and medical equipment to the value of £7,000, and that the burning and destruction took no less than fourteen days? I accept that in a complete evacuation such as took place here much of the equipment which had been there for many years was useless, but will my hon. Friend ask for a stock list of what should have been transferred and compare it with the figure he subsequently received?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My information is that nothing serviceable was destroyed, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary I will certainly consider it and look at the stock list position.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty at what date existing aircraft carriers will become obsolete; and what plans he has for their replacement.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Our five operational carriers will all have a first-class

capability until at least the early 1970s. No decision has yet been taken about replacements, but we are studying the characteristics which they would need.

Mr. Wall: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that it might be better, from the point of view both of defence and of cost, not to replace these vessels by aircraft carriers but to lay down missile submarines? Can my hon. Friend say when the Admiralty is likely to reach a decision on this matter?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should think that recent events in Kuwait showed how valuable an aircraft carrier is, not only to provide radar cover and control facilities—[Interruption.]—yes, the commando carrier has been reinforced by "Victorious", an aircraft carrier, and these carriers are absolutely invaluable in the present climate and difficulties in the world.

Mr. Willis: Can the Civil Lord give an assurance that before the Admiralty comes to a decision on this, there will be a debate in this House, as very strong views are held on both sides as to whether or no we should persist in replacing these aircraft carriers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Some time may elapse before we start on the programme. As I say, no decision has yet been taken about replacements. An aircraft carrier normally lasts twenty years, and if we do a major modernisation on it, it will last ten years after that. So we need not rush into a decision on this important matter.

Mr. Willis: But the Civil Lord has not answered my question—

Mr. Speaker: The Civil Lord cannot be asked about arrangements for business. He does not arrange business.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Admiralty makes the decision, and all we ask is that it should not be made until after there has been a full debate in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman can answer that.

Assault Ship

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he expects the new assault ship to be laid down and to be launched.

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress is being made with the construction of the assault ship.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We hope to invite tenders by the end of this month, and we shall then need time to consider the response before an order is placed. It is too early to say when the ship will be laid down and launched.

Mr. Wall: While accepting my hon. Friend's view that the Kuwait operations illustrate the success of the commando carrier concept, do they not also illustrate the fact that it is essential to have an assault ship capable of keeping up with the commando carrier and of landing both transport and armour? Will my hon. Friend press forward with the completion of this ship, and get on with the laying down of a second?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is important to get the tenders out first, then consider them, and then get the ship laid down before we consider a second.

Mr. Willis: As the Admiralty has known that such a ship has been required for many years now, has it not been very dilatory, and should it not now try to get the ship completed as quickly as possible?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Considerable improvements have been effected during the period. We have taken the best lessons of American and other practice and have built them in the design of this ship which, we think, will be the better for them.

H.M.S. "Albion"

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to expedite the conversion of H.M.S. "Albion" to the rôle of commando carrier.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Special steps were taken to fit H.M.S. "Albion" into the dockyard programme at Portsmouth. She will be completed as soon as possible consistent with incorporating in her the lessons learnt with H.M.S. "Bulwark".

Mr. Willis: As recent events have shown the importance of these ships, can the Civil Lord say when this one is likely to be finished?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We would hope that she would become operational towards the end of next year.

Sir J. Maitland: Is it intended that "Albion" and "Bulwark" will work together?

Mr. G. Brown: It would be unfortunate if they worked against each other.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: They will operate concurrently, one east and one west of Suez. To maintain continuous availability east of Suez, the carrier west of the Canal will be refitting part of the time.

Chief of Security

Mr. Lipton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the new chief of security in his Department will be appointed.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend hopes to make an announcement before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the urgent need for effective control of naval security, will the Civil Lord hasten the appointment of a competent person? Will he see that whoever is appointed is not just an ordinary civil servant or a "brass hat" on the verge of retirement, but someone who has some experience of security methods?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend is aware, as I am, of the need to have the best possible man for this very important job.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Admiralty's security arrangements in view of the fact that yet another Admiralty official was arrested yesterday, according to the Press, and charged under the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not responsible for reports in the Press, but I can say that the report this morning that a security leakage involving top secret experimental work on nuclear-powered submarines is being investigated is completely untrue; and most of the statements in the rest of the article have no foundation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss this. It is sub judice.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Civil Lord see that the person who is appointed is someone who has previous experience of security work?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That will be a major consideration.

Admiralty Departments (Select Committee's Report)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what further steps have been taken to concentrate Admiralty departments at one site, in pursuance of Recommendation 6 of the First Report from the Select Committee on Estimates in Session 1959–60, in view of the recent decision to amalgamate sections of the Naval Accounts Departments at Bath.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As already announced, the Dockyards and Maintenance Department has already been concentrated on one site in Bath, and the Radio Division of the Weapons Department, at present in London, will join its parent department in Bath in mid-1962.
The move of the Accounts Department to Bath in mid-1962 will leave two branches in London. The intention is to move them to Bath also as part of a long-term redeployment plan, but this will involve new building.
The Admiralty is vacating Queen Anne's Mansions and its offices in Pinner next year, and concentrating approximately 1,900 staff in the new Empress State Building at Earls Court. This will achieve economies in common services and contribute to greater inter-departmental efficiency.

Mr. Carr: Whilst expressing satisfaction with the progress that is being made with the first part of Recommendation No. 6, may I ask my hon. Friend whether equal progress has been made in the implementation of the second part of that recommendation.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The concentration of the whole of the Department in one place does mean that there is less call on the Director-General to have to travel. We in the Admiralty are trying to exercise economy in this respect, and

are trying to avoid calling the Director-General up from Bath unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

General Pina (Visit)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the subject of the recent negotiations in London between General Pina, chief of staff of the Portuguese army, and representatives of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I have nothing to add to my Answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on 27th June.

Mr. Brockway: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) showed me that Answer. In that Answer, the Secretary of State stated that there were discussions about N.A.T.O. problems. Can the right hon. Gentleman solve a problem which is puzzling many of us: how will it be possible to provide Portugal with arms restricted to N.A.T.O. purposes and not to be used in Portugal's overseas territories? How is it possible?

Mr. Profumo: If I may stick to the Question on the Order Paper, there were no discussions about arms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there were no discussions about arms during this visit, and no inquiries were made of my Department then, nor have any been made since.

Mr. Mayhew: Why not? Surely, this is precisely the moment to make some effort to see that these arms do not go to Angola.

Mr. Profumo: I said that there was no discussion. General Pina, whose visit is the subject of this Question, did not enter into any discussions about arms, and there have been no inquiries of my Department about arms, either then or since.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the grave situation in Angola, and the feeling expressed in this House in last week's debate, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the position in Angola with General Pina, and ask him to take up the matter with his Government with a


view to Portugal desisting from the atrocities there?

Mr. Profumo: Discussions of this sort are, and should remain, confidential.

Land, Malta

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Secretary of State for War how much was paid for a plot of land known as Tal Basal at Delimara, Malta, which was purchased by the War Department in February, 1942, for use as a machine-gun post; to whom the land has been sold subsequently; what price was paid for it; and whether the former owners were given the opportunity of repurchasing.

Mr. Profumo: This land, purchased from a private seller in 1942, was sold this year to Mr. Nicholas Scerri by open tender. It is contrary to Government practice to disclose the prices paid for land bought from a private seller or obtained for land if sold by tender. The former owners were given facilities to tender for its purchase, but were unsuccessful.

Mr. Woodnutt: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in cases such as this the person from whom the land was compulsorily acquired should be given an opportunity to buy it back and that these people were, in fact, prepared to pay a considerably larger sum than that which they received? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that in the future he will see that people are reasonably treated in these matters?

Mr. Profumo: I would not say that my hon. Friend's constituents were not treated properly, because the land was bought freehold and was not requisitioned. At the same time, we gave the owners an opportunity to repurchase the land. There was no reservation of pre-emptive rights in the original sale, and my Department is, of course, bound to get the best value it can in the current market.

19th Brigade Group (Exercise)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War why the exercise planned for the 19th Brigade Group in Portugal was cancelled; and what alternative exercise is planned.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War what plans he now has for training exercises for the United Kingdom-based strategic reserve.

Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in answer to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on 6th July, the commitments for our forces and aircraft elsewhere made it necessary to postpone the exercise planned for the 19th Brigade Group in Portugal. The battalion exercise in Canada to which I referred in my Estimates speech is going ahead as planned. The re-arrangement of other overseas exercises must be postponed until we know how long our commitments in the Persian Gulf will continue; but of course the present moves of part of the strategic reserve are in themselves excellent and realistic training.

Mr. Strachey: But is not that the wrong reason for having done the right thing? Would it not be very much better if we agreed now that this whole proposal to have an exercise in Portugal was politically most undesirable?

Mr. Profumo: If it was not politically undesirable when we last discussed it, I do not see what has made it so now.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Secretary of State give a plain assurance that, while the present shocking situation continues in Angola, we shall have no military exercise of any kind in Portugal?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot give any such undertaking. Let us be realistic about this. I think that we must postpone this exercise for practical reasons for the time being, but I shall wish, if it is possible, to carry out an exercise of this sort at a future time because I believe that it will help our troops. That is the criterion by which we judge the matter.

Kenya (Replacements)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War what replacements are being sent to Kenya to replace the forces sent to Kuwait.

Mr. Profumo: Headquarters 19 Infantry Brigade Group, the 1st battalion the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, and certain administrative units.

Mr. Strachey: How much is left in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Profumo: That is a wholly different question and it is not one which I think any hon. Member would expect me to answer, let alone the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Secretary of State for War; but if there is any suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's question that the cupboard is bare, I can assure him that this is far from the case.

King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will carry out an investigation into the circumstances in which a horse from the King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery, was beaten on the instructions of an officer, on Thursday evening, 22nd June, 1961; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Profumo: I share the concern which is, I know, widely felt about these distressing allegations. I caused an investigation to be made, and I have now been able to study the report which has been made to me.
However, as the House will know, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is also holding an inquiry. I much welcome this, and have instructed that every assistance should be given the Society in it.
This inquiry has not yet been concluded, and my hon. Friend will therefore understand that I do not wish to influence its course by making any statement yet about the report I have received.

Mr. Burden: While accepting those remarks and thanking my right hon. Friend for them, may I also ask him to give an undertaking that he will issue notice to all units that employ horses that any brutality of any description against any horse owned by the War Office will not be tolerated, and that if any animal shows itself to be temperamentally unsuited to training, that animal will be disposed of and not ill-treated.

Mr. Profumo: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to give such an undertaking.

Mr. Manuel: Why?

Mr. Profumo: I have explained to the House that I regard this matter as sub judice and that is the only reason why, at this stage, I am not publishing the report that was made to me. Perhaps sub judice is too strong an expression. I know that the House wants to have all the facts about this case. As an independent inquiry is being held by an organisation which, I am sure, is held in high esteem by all hon. Members, I do not propose to make public the report that was made to me. But I shall certainly wish to take an opportunity of expressing publicly the soldier's side of this distressing affair. So far we have heard only the accusations, but I am sure that even those who are most shocked will realise that there are two sides to this case.

Mr. Burden: The request I was making has nothing to do with the present case but is designed to ensure that there is no possibility of any such happening in the future. It has no relation whatever to the case which my right hon. Friend has said is sub judice.

Mr. Profumo: I appreciate my hon. Friend's view and I will look into the matter, but I am not persuaded that there is any need for such an instruction.

Kuwait

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War what troops are now committed in Kuwait.

Mr. Profumo: There are at this moment in Kuwait two Royal Marine Commandos and three battalions of infantry with tanks, armoured cars and guns in support. There are also, of course, detachments from all the administrative services.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Secretary of State say how the fulfilment of this commitment has affected the deployment of our troops in Aden, Kenya, Cyprus and at home?

Mr. Profumo: That is a much wider question which I hope, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops in general, he will put down to the Minister of Defence.

Mr. John Hall: My right hon. Friend says that there are guns in Kuwait.


Would he say if there are any anti-tank guns there?

Mr. Profumo: I would not like to be drawn into the individual details of all the weapons. As I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, there is a point beyond which one cannot go in giving individual information. This is a balanced force which has with it the arms and equipment which are necessary for the operations it was thought it might have to undertake.

Mr. Shinwell: Was any part of the 19th Brigade Group, which was intended to undertake the exercises in Portugal, sent to Kuwait? If none of them are there, where are they?

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not fully understand an Answer that I gave earlier. If he will look at it he will see that part of the 19th Brigade Group is now in Kenya and has taken the place of troops who were moved from Kenya to Kuwait. Part of the 19th Brigade Group is still in this country.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Secretary of State amplify statements which have been made today that certain of these units are now being withdrawn?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot amplify them, except to say that some units are being withdrawn and some will continue to be withdrawn as the commander-in-chief feels that the situation warrants. As these units are withdrawn we propose to make announcements of the names of the units.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us believe that the essential thing in the deployment of our forces is that we should have balanced formations wherever they happen to be. His news that only part of the 19th Brigade Group is now in Kenya is somewhat disturbing, if it is to be taken to mean that that formation has been split up with some component parts being employed independently.

Mr. Profumo: I did not say that it was being employed independently. When we moved certain troops from Kenya to Kuwait it was felt right that we should increase the number of troops which were held as a local theatre reserve

in Kenya. This operation started to the extent that I have reported to the House, but, in view of the fact that things are more stable in Kuwait and it is even intended to withdraw some of the troops there, the rest of the movement operation of the 19th Brigade Group has for the time being stopped and, in due course, the one bit will join the other.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to relieve troops in Kuwait.

Mr. Profumo: It is too early yet for me to be able to detail such arrangements.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am not asking about the withdrawal of troops, but the relief of them on a rotational basis, as mentioned by the Minister of Defence yesterday? In view of the extremely difficult conditions under which our troops are operating in Kuwait, what is the maximum amount of time it is proposed to leave any individual there in an exposed position before relief?

Mr. Profumo: It is too early yet for the position to be precise, because during a period when there may still have to be some active operation the removal or rotation of troops must be on an ad hoc basis. As and when things settle down, we will be able to evolve plans, which are now being thought out, to do things on a proper basis. When things settle down it will be our intention not to leave these soldiers in Kuwait for more than a few months at a time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming that statement, will my right hon. Friend also assure us that British forces will not be relieved or ousted by the United Nations?

Mr. Profumo: That is a much wider question with which the Minister of Defence dealt yesterday.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says "when we settle down in Kuwait"? Is it not true that we are there because of a specific request by the Ruler of Kuwait, one man, and that whether we leave or not depends upon the veto of this gentleman?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that I said "when we settle down". If I did, I meant to say "when things settle down". My right hon. Friend made it plain yesterday that we are there at the request of the Ruler, and when the Ruler asks us to leave and says that he is happy, we shall be only too glad to leave, as my right hon. Friend said. There may be a period in between, which I think is the period that the hon. Gentleman had in mind, and during that period, if it exists, we shall try to rotate the troops.

GERMAN FORCES (TRAINING FACILITIES, UNITED KINGDOM)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

48. Mr. G. BROWN: To ask the Minister of Defence whether he will make a further statement about the provision of facilities for German forces in this country.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 48.
Yes, Sir. As the House knows, discussions have taken place with the Federal German Government about the provision of certain facilities for the storage of ammunition, oil and general stores in Service installations.
Arrangements are also being made for the reception in the autumn of a tank battalion at the Army's tank training range at Castlemartin. On the results of this trial, a decision will be made about the reception of further units.
The storage facilities and training range will remain under British control. The cost of providing these facilities will be met by the Federal German Government.
Before these arrangements are implemented, Parliament will be asked to approve a draft Order in Council under the Visiting Farces Act. The draft Order will be laid before the House today.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister aware that this is a statement of considerable gravity which the country, whatever the ordinary views of the people, will con-

sider rather soberly? Will he answer two or three questions? First, can he tell us for haw long the tank battalion may be expected to be here? Secondly, since there are tank-training facilities on the Continent and since the Germans, I understand, use American tanks and the Americans have a tank-training area in Bavaria, can he say why they were unable to use one of those facilities there?
Thirdly, since, at this moment, we have British troops going there, and if events had not overtaken us we would have had British troops going to Portugal and now we have German troops coming here, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the onus lies on him to prove an overwhelming case for this arrangement if the country is to be asked to accept it?

Mr. Watkinson: First, in response to the general tone of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, may I say that this is a very difficult position and one which many people will ponder greatly. I accept that. I have done so myself. To be fair to the Germans who are our allies in N.A.T.O., they, too, have thought about it seriously. I think that they have their fears and hesitations about this.
Before I answer the right hon. Gentleman's three specific questions, I should like to say that I have come to the view—and I think that all people who think about this matter seriously must do so—that if N.A.T.O. means anything to us, then all N.A.T.O. allies must try to work together, particularly against the darkening international scene.
To answer the three specific questions, the first battalion which is coming largely, as I have said, to see how it goes, will come for three weeks only. The reason why N.A.T.O.—and it is a N.A.T.O. decision—thinks it logical for the Germans to train here whilst we and the Americans train in Germany is that the tank forces are at an entirely different stage of training. For example, our tank forces need mobile battle training over very large areas of the German countryside, and those areas are freely given to us by the Germans; we need them and we must keep them.
On the other hand, the German troops who come here are at an elementary stage in their training where they merely need ordinary range firing practice and do not


need to do manœuvres or anything of a complicated nature. As this range is eminently suitable for them, it seems to N.A.T.O.—and I agree—a logical distribution of our facilities that we should have the battle training in Germany and that they should have the practice firing over here.
The answer to the third question is that if N.A.T.O. is to be a viable and efficient association of free nations, we must try to share out these facilities as fairly as we can. It is in response to discussions in N.A.T.O. and a lot of N.A.T.O. examination that this seems to be the most sensible way of helping the Germans by providing the facilities which the alliance as a whole needs.

Mr. G. Brown: May I put two further points? Will the Minister tell us why, if they are only coming for three weeks, it is necessary to amend the Visiting Forces Act? Secondly, is it proposed that other N.A.T.O. countries will also come and visit us here?

Mr. Watkinson: I should be very glad not to have to amend the Visiting Forces Act. But although, as I think the House knows, several hundred Germans have already had training here, they have come as individuals. I am advised that once a formation comes it is to protect the British public as well as everything else that this Act has to be extended.
In reply to the other point, it is open to the Americans, or any other nation which wants to come, to use the range. The only difficulty at the moment, so far as I know, is that there is not a demand for this somewhat elementary firing practice which apparently the Germans need.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the best assurance that we can possibly have of any German military elements not getting out of control would be for them to be totally integrated with us and the whole N.A.T.O. system, being as interlocked as possible? For that reason, is not my right hon. Friend to be highly commended that this decision has been taken?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should have thought that the

greatest safeguard for the West and for those who remember two world wars is that Germany should be fully integrated into N.A.T.O.; and it is only fair that I should add that that is what the West German Government wish.

Mr. Donnelly: I am not clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If the reason for these forces coming here is to integrate the Western Alliance and to standardise training and equipment, and so on, then I can see that it is desirable and perfectly defensible, and I am prepared to help defend it, especially at this juncture in the international scene. On the other hand, if it is a question merely of this particular training ground, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made out a practical case. Why is it necessary to bring 600 men to this remote corner of Wales simply for this experimental exercise? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has to make out a much stronger case to get over the inhibitions and the memories which exist in this country?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. There are two answers. The first is, as I have explained and as I will try to explain again, that this is a N.A.T.O. decision. It is not something that the Germans and ourselves fixed up on a unilateral basis. It is N.A.T.O.'s decision that this is the best way to allocate very scarce training areas. Naturally, in the whole N.A.T.O. area there is constant pressure to diminish training areas. There is a lot of pressure on us in Germany not to exercise over farmlands and land that people would like to use for other purposes. But because we are firm in saying that we can only fulfil our obligations by doing this, we cannot refuse if the Germans say, "You have a firing range which suits us ideally. Can we use it?"
As to the question whether this is a trial run, I think that in the interests of the Germans and of ourselves they felt that we should do this to see whether it is a sensible thing to do in the broad N.A.T.O. interest. That is why we thought that the best thing to do was to have this battalion, to see whether the thing is practical and sensible, and if so, to continue it.

Mr. Bowles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these German troops are subject completely to British law?

Mr. Watkinson: Under the Visiting Forces Act, which applies to any visiting forces, the answer is that the German troops as individuals and off duty are subject to British law, like any other citizen. The Visiting Forces Act makes them, when they are in formation, subject to the military discipline from their officers. The whole operation, of course, is under British control.

Mr. A. Henderson: If this experiment is successful, is it intended to have Dutch, Belgian, or other national tank battalions here?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly, if they wish to come. For example, the Americans are now making use of the Hebrides rocket firing range.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the darkening international scene. Is there any reason why he should take action to darken it still further? Does he realise that this action in allowing German forces, even in a token way, to spread outside their own country is completely contrary to the undertakings given at the time when Germany entered N.A.T.O. as a means of restricting the rearmament of Germany and its restoration to military power?

Mr. Watkinson: I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is making his own contribution to the darkening of the international scene in implying that it is right at this time to treat the Germans as some kind of second-class N.A.T.O. ally.

Mr. Wigg: Does the Minister agree that it is a quite simple proposition, that the Government, as a by-product of their economic and defence policies, first tried to sell the Germans the Centurion, then tried to sell them the Chieftain—the Germans would not have either of them—and now what the Government are doing is trying to sell them the gun?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the Government have sold them the gun.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really cannot debate this now without a Question before the House.

KUWAIT (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)

Mr. Wigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order arising from the reply given by the Minister of Defence yesterday to Question No. 96.
The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his reply by saying that he was answering with your permission. I take it that that was a courtesy and that your permission in such circumstances is always given. Later in his reply the Minister said:
With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 211.]
At that point, the right hon. Gentleman was, I presume, seeking the permission of the House.
When one refers to HANSARD this morning, one finds that there are three columns, not only concerned with details but containing a modification of a reply given by the Prime Minister on the 3rd of this month.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a grave abuse of the rights and privileges of the House that a Minister should modify a statement in this way, particularly at a time when both Front Benches are agreed on the commitment of troops to Kuwait and the conduct of the operation, and the only recourse left to individual Members who may wish to question the Government is to put Questions on the Order Paper? Any hon. Member who does that then finds that his Questions are dealt with in this way, at a time when both the Government and the Opposition are agreed that no debate should take place.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's grievance, if any, must be with the Minister, as it were, not with the Chair. The Minister does not in those circumstances, I think, ask my permission in any form in which I can refuse it. The words are not, "With your permission, Mr. Speaker", but "with permission, Mr. Speaker".
As in the case of a Minister answering in one Answer more than one Question, he begins with the words "With permission". I think that that is a courtesy and it does not represent a position in which the Chair or the House can refuse him permission.
I think that the same applies to the unusual position here, where, having given part of his Answer orally, the Minister says, "With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT". That is really an operation which Ministers undertake, I suppose, to save the time of the House. Indeed, it would have been intolerable if all that long matter which went into the OFFICIAL REPORT had been put into our immediate post-Question Time yesterday.
The Chair could not undertake responsibility for censoring that kind of operation in any way because, of course, I do not in the least know what is in the statement which the Minister proposes to put in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no chance of looking at it. I regret that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. From the point of view of the Chair, I think that that rightly states the position.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister injects into part of the statement he makes arising out of a Question put by an hon. Member, as was the case in this instance, a modification of Government policy which is not open to questions because it is inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT as an addition to his oral reply to the Question, what redress is there for hon. Members who wish to put questions to the Minister of Defence on that part of the statement which is added to his oral reply?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find some way, in order, in which to reproach the Minister. I should like to think about the best way, if he has difficulty about it. But I do not think that the merits of the matter can conceivably be for the Chair in these circumstances.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. Has it not always been the rule, Mr. Speaker, that one may not anticipate in this way Questions which are on the Order Paper? We have a large

number of Questions already on the Order Paper for today about Kuwait, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had Questions for Written Answer on the Order Paper for that day which were avoided by this device. With respect, we now find that there has been inserted in HANSARD a statement, nearly 2,000 words long, which gives a completely different version—a highly remarkable version—of the origin of the Kuwait expedition.
Today, when the Minister has purported by this means to talk about the disposal of troops in Kuwait, we are referred to his statement of yesterday for some information, and he refuses information about whether there are antitank guns there although we know that there are tanks in Iraq because the present Government supplied them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member can make a speech about all these things in putting a point of order. Perhaps I can deal with his point about anticipation, as I understand it.
It seems to me that the difficulty about that is that the Minister was, in answering orally and putting the statement into the OFFICIAL REPORT, answering a Question which was then, in fact, on the Order Paper. No rule of anticipation can prohibit him from doing that. That is the problem.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that, earlier last week, I put a Question on the Order Paper dealing with the details of troop movements? The right hon. Gentleman declined to answer it on the ground of public interest. I put three Questions down on Friday, and he said that he would make a statement during the week. He did not have the courtesy to tell me when the reply would be made. Then, we find that a Question is arranged between the two Front Benches for yesterday—

Mr. Bowden: Mr. Bowden indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: Whatever the Opposition Chief Whip may say, it had been prearranged to put that Question on the Order Paper, and it was answered in such a way as to preclude certain fundamental questions being put to the Minister.

Mr. G. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—if it be a point of order. The allegation is made that this was a prearranged Question. Since it was my Question, may I have your protection? There was no prearrangement. I put a Question on the Order Paper. I had no way of knowing what my hon. Friend was doing. It happened that the Minister chose to answer my Question. May I submit to you my own point of order? Should not my hon. Friend now withdraw his allegation? Am I not entitled to some protection from the Chair in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: We are getting a very long way from anything which could conceivably be a point of order for the Chair. I am not sure that I heard the entirety of what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said because there was a certain amount of noise, but if he asserts that, by reason of the procedure adopted, his Questions for Written Answer which appeared yesterday were not, in fact, answered, or were not answered sufficiently, he is in no sense deprived of a remedy because, if a Question is not answered, he can put it down again for answer so far as it was not answered.

Mr. Wigg: When I approach the Table to put down further Questions, I find that I am now precluded from so

doing because my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has given notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I should be distressed to think that that had the effect that the hon. Member for Dudley thinks it has. My recollection of the notice was that it related to the weekly cost of what was called "this adventure". I do not think that the weekly cost was exactly the matter which the hon. Member for Dudley was pursuing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the notice of my Adjournment—when I get it—was confined to the question of cost, on which we have not yet had any information.

Mr. Speaker: It would appear that the hon. Gentleman and myself are in close agreement.

Mr. Wigg: I do not wish to pursue this any more, Sir, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said that he would like to be protected, may I say that I went out of my way to verify the facts in consultation with the Opposition Chief Whip.

Mr. Speaker: All this is a long way from anything which could be a matter of order for the Chair.

LEASEHOLD REFORM, WALES

3.51 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move,
That this House, noting with grave concern the hardships caused in Wales by the operation of the current leasehold system, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce forthwith legislation enabling leaseholders who are owner-occupiers to purchase the freeholds of their homes at a fair and reasonable cost.
Telegrams and messages which have come in from the Principality today indicate the very deep interest and concern which our people have in the subject of leasehold.
The problem of leasehold reform is not new to this House. As far back as 1885 a supplementary report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into the housing of the working classes stated that legislation favourable to the acquisition on equitable terms of the freehold interest on the part of leaseholders would conduce greatly to the improvement of the dwellings of the people of this country.
Needless to say, opposition to this proposal was led by the Lord Salisbury of the day. He thought that the suggestion was at once objectionable and revolutionary, and that was the end of that for the time being. Select Committees of this House were directed to consider the leasehold system in 1889 and again in 1920. In the intervening years, over 20 Private Members' Bills have been introduced into this House seeking to ameliorate in some way the hardships of the operation of the leasehold system.
It was left for the Labour Government, in the 1940s, to set up a special committee of inquiry into the working of the leasehold system. Four hon. Members who are Members of the House now played a prominent part in that committee, which was known subsequently as the Jenkins Committee, being named after its second chairman. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who submitted a minority report of his own, was a member of the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. UngoedThomas), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) also served on the Commit-

tee. The majority Report, which was signed by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan, rejected leasehold enfranchisement as a policy, partly for lack of evidence of any gross abuse of the system. The minority Report, which was signed by my hon. and learned Friend, came out strongly in favour of leasehold enfranchisement.
The first result of that report was that a holding Measure was introduced by the Labour Government of 1950. It was called the Leasehold (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Unhappily, it fell to the party opposite, due to its success in the 1951 General Election, to introduce permanent legislation based on the Jenkins Report. This it did in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. We opposed that Measure on its Second Reading because it failed to provide leasehold enfranchisement for owner-occupiers. Desipte the fact that every hon. Member opposite, including the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), went into the Division Lobby in support of the Second Reading of the Bill, we were unanimously against it.
In the debate on 30th April, 1953, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then the Home Secretary, was the spokesman for the Government, and he said:
We are not in favour of enfranchisement…and our conclusion is that even a moderate scheme of leasehold enfranchisement runs into such difficulties that it is simply not worth while.
Later, in giving one of the main aims of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, he said:
I feel that today the main need is for the right of occupation to be protected rather than for a new right of ownership to be conceded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 514, cc. 2351 and 2356.]
The first substantial point that I wish to make is that, since the Jenkins Committee reported, and since the 1954 Act was introduced, circumstances have changed so radically that the conclusions of the Jenkins Committee no longer have any relevance to our situation. Three new important factors have conspired to change the whole aspect of our leasehold problem. First, the change in town and country planning legislation, with the unparalleled leap-frogging in the value of land, has radically changed the problem of leasehold. Secondly, the inflationary influence of the Rent Act, 1957, on the value of property cannot be exaggerated, especially with regard to the leasehold


problem. Thirdly, the ground landlord's exploitation of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, has exposed leaseholders to practices little short of legalised blackmail.
The 1954 Act, in favour of which the hon. Member for Barry waxed so eloquent, seems to be completely lopsided. It is a ground landlord's charter, for it makes him judge and jury in his own cause. When leaseholders seek either to renew their lease, or to buy the freehold of their home, they are held to ransome. Leaseholders are completely defenceless before the ground landlord. First, it is the landlord who decides whether there will be any negotiations about either renewing the lease or buying the freehold. In many cases he arrogantly ignores communications from tenants about the renewal of the lease or the purchase of the freehold.
Secondly, it is the ground landlord who decides whether there shall be any renewal of the lease if there are negotiations or whether he will insist on the sale of the freehold, or vice versa.
Thirdly, the ground landlord lays down the terms and the tenant has to take them or leave them. The law is weighted completely in favour of the ground landlord. He lays down a time limit, usually 30 days, in which leaseholders have either to accept his terms or to lose their property.
Because of the profitability of the leasehold system, finance corporations have bought out a great many ground landlords. Today, South Wales is in the grasp of a few of these powerful speculative bodies. I welcome a director of at least one on the benches opposite. These finance corporations have South Wales in an octopus grip, and they are exploiting to the maximum their near monopoly powers. The City of Cardiff, the capital of Wales, is a shocking example of a city in pawn to absentee landlords whom we see only when we come to this House, when we see them sitting on the benches opposite.
I want to give the House some examples of how the leasehold system, which the Attorney-General defended so vigorously last week, when he said there was no need for a change in the law, is working in Wales. A constituent of mine in Riverside, Cardiff, who had

twenty-three years to run on his lease and whose ground rent was £3 10s. a year, applied to the Western Ground Rents Finance Corporation for his freehold in March, 1959. He was told by that finance corporation that he could not be allowed to buy his freehold but that in their grace the finance people would permit him to renew his lease for eighty years, taking into account the twenty-three years still to run, so that it was an addition of fifty-seven years. If the lease was renewed, however, he would have to pay a premium of £180 and the ground rent would go from £3 10s. to £12 10s. He refused the offer. That was in March, 1959.
In September, 1960—possibly his circumstances had altered—he came back to the same corporation and was told that he could have his lease renewed, but that the ground rent would go from £3 10s. not to £12 10s., but to £20, and that the premium would be, not £180, but £500. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Does the Attorney-General defend blackmailing efforts of that sort?
In the constituency of the hon. Member for Barry, who sits on the benches opposite, the freehold cost of a house in 1958 was £400, which the owner-occupier declined to pay. In 1960, however, two years later, the cost had jumped from £400 to £750. It had nearly doubled in two years. Is that what the Attorney-General thinks is a system that does not need changing?
I can quote another case of an owner-occupier with thirty-two years remaining to his lease. Western Ground Rents said that it could be extended to eighty years on payment of a premium of £345, the ground rent jumping from £9 10s. to £35 forthwith, although the lease still had thirty-two years to run. That is the equivalent to demanding from my constituent a premium of £1,161 for an extension of the lease for forty-eight years, with all solicitors' and surveyors' fees to be paid by the tenant.
The lifeblood is being drained out of Wales by the financiers, who are protected by the Government side of the House. These excessive premiums and extravagant freehold charges make legislation urgently necessary, not in the long term, but in the near future. The leasehold system works in an inflationary way because, very often, people have to renew the lease on their houses before


they can get a mortgage. Properties in Cardiff and right along the South Wales coastal belt and in the valleys become virtually unsaleable in the latter part of a lease and they become neglected.
I have an instance from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). It concerns a retired police officer, aged 80, who was receiving £5 a week. I know that age and income do not matter to finance corporations, but these things matter to this House, as we represent the people. This man was paying a ground rent of £2 12s. a year. He has been offered an immediate renewal of his lease for fifteen years, including the six years unexpired, at £30 a year instead of the £2 12s. He has refused.
I have one more illustration, from the City of Cardiff, of the operations of Western Ground Rents. Mr. Harold Turner, who lived at 51, Cathedral Road, Cardiff, was so infuriated by the demand of Western Ground Rents that he went to the Western Mail, to whom I pay tribute for the consistent and outstanding way in which it has campaigned for leasehold enfranchisement. I want today to pay my tribute in the House to the Western Mail for its attitude to this question.
Mr. Turner has twenty-three years to run on his lease. He pays a ground rent in Cathedral Road of £10 a year. Western Ground Rents said that he could have the freehold of his house for £2,315 and legal fees. That is equivalent to £18,520 an acre. The Attorney-General blandly told me last week, just as he is smiling now, that no change in the law was necessary.
What headlines there are when workers ask for an increase in pay, but these speculators, who do nothing to increase our national wealth, get increases beyond calculation. Our whole community, from the tip of Pembrokeshire right across to Monmouthshire, as the Minister for Welsh Affairs ought well to know, quite regardless of party loyalties, is in a state of fury about the machinations of these ground landlords and finance corporations and the callous behaviour of our absentee landlords.
Things have now reached such a pitch that some of the better ground landlords are appealing to finance corporations

like Western Ground Rents to behave. The Lord Lieutenant of the County of Glamorgan is highly respected. He is claimed as a friend by hon. Members on this side as much as by hon. Members opposite. Nobody would accuse him of being a Socialist. Indeed, to the contrary, he is a ground landlord himself.
In the Western Mail of 16th March, 1961, however, he was reported in the following terms:
Property owners should not be too greedy concerning the sale of freeholds, Colonel C. G. Traherne, the Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan and President of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Association of Building Societies, said at the Association's annual luncheon in Cardiff yesterday. There are occasions when the price our client has been asked to pay has been exorbitant and then we may not have been able to make the full advance.
I beg the Government Front Bench to realise that these are not the exaggerated claims of people with a grudge against landlords. These are the calculated statements of people with knowledge of the way in which finance corporations are exploiting the power given to them under the 1954 Act.
Although the Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan appealed to the better nature of the finance corporations, he could have saved his breath. It is as useful to appeal to their better nature as it would be to pray for fine weather in a blizzard on a mountain top. These finance corporations are quite soulless. They are without feeling. They measure every application in terms of £ s. d. and disregard all human considerations. They are concerned with profits, not with people. They reject appeals, they scorn petitions and they rob the widow and the pensioner alike. The law allows them to do it.
Nothing but an alteration of the law will prevent this exploitation being continued. Exhortations from the Dispatch Box and exhortations by hon. Members and right hon. Members in the country will not stop these finance corporations having their pound of flesh. These people have done nothing to increase our wealth in Wales. They come there only for their dividends. They have never built a house, they have never provided a drain, they have never built a road or helped with our street lighting, and they have never helped in any way to increase the value of the land. But they are


cashing in on the labours of our community and stealing the reward of our labours.
I realise that it is easy to condemn these money-crazed financiers as social parasites. I realise that it is quite easy to do that, but the real culprits are on the Treasury Bench. The real culprits are those who use this House to protect finance corporations of this sort. The real culprits are those who put the power in their hands. That is why we are putting forward this Motion, a Motion which notes the grave disquiet and hardship which the present leasehold system is creating.
I say to the Attorney-General that there is not a Welsh Tory in South Wales who feels it safe not to join us on this issue. They all of them express the same anxiety, and express the same contempt for the machinations of these finance corporations, as I have expressed here this afternoon. It is undoubtedly a fact that the Welsh people are more united on this than on any other question.
Moreover, we feel that no further inquiry is needed. That is why I took my name from the Motion put down by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box). Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have done the same. We feel we have all the information necessary. I have already given instances this afternoon which surely call for remedy.
I would quote a most remarkable and outstanding article in the Western Mail of Tuesday, 4th July, referring to the Answers which the Attorney-General gave me in the House last week. It says:
The danger is"—
and this is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's Motion—
that further delay will exacerbate the situation. But it is perfectly clear from the remarks last week of the Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, that the Government either has not given this matter proper consideration or that it has callously disregarded the plight of many thousands of leaseholders, not only in South Wales but in other pockets throughout Britain. Sir Reginald seems to think that it is enough to reassure a man, whose father or himself has bought a house by dint of years of saving and self-denial, that he has no need to worry because the 1954 Act gives him security of tenure. What kind of justice is this, that

an archaic system, a legacy from the days of the robber barons, makes a man a tenant in his own home, having to pay a full economic rent with nothing to show for his thrift and no redress?
That is the policy which the Attorney-General defended last week.
I think that the House ought to be aware that within the next twenty years thousands of leases in South Wales will fall in; 12,000 will fall in in the City of Cardiff. Although the information which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) gave us proved inaccurate, that nobody has been refused permission to buy his freehold, and although the hon. Member has had to admit that he was wrong in that, none the less I accept his statement that leases will fall in within the next twenty years. In the valleys of South Wales leases will fall in on a wholesale basis, and, therefore, every passing year, without legislation, pushes up the Prices, puts money into the pockets of finance corporations and makes the leaseholders' position and that of those who are seeking security in their own homes more intolerable.
The compensation on which enfranchisement is to be given we have left open. All we say in the Motion is that owner-occupiers should be able to purchase their freeholds
at a fair and reasonable cost.
We do that because we realise that definitions belong to legislation rather than to Motions, and it is obviously the responsibility of those who introduce the Bill to deal with that question. The questions of amenity covenants and severance compensation and minor issues, as I regard them, would be dealt with by legislation, but the general principle ought to be accepted.
I realise that there are probably great differences between those on that side of the House and those on this on what is fair compensation. On 3rd March last, again in the Western Mail, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North is reported as having been addressing the Cardiff North Conservative Women's annual meeting. A cosy meeting, no doubt. Many of my neighbours will have been there, and delightful people they are—for Tories. The hon. Gentleman told that meeting:
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Socialists in wanting to solve this problem, but their idea of a fair deal to both parties may differ considerably from our own.


The hon. Gentleman never spoke a truer word, because there is a wide gulf between us as to what the compensation ought to be to people of this sort.
The present Lord Chancellor, in the debate in 1953, posed two pertinent questions. He said:
Is the compensation payable by the tenant to be related to the market worth of what the tenant is acquiring or is it to be something else? Is the right of enfranchisement to be limited to the leasehold occupier or to extend to the leasehold investor who sublets at a rack rent?"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 2351.]
We are quite clear in our Motion. We limit the leasehold enfranchisement to the owner-occupier, to the little family struggling to own its own home. We believe that every family has that inalienable right to own its own home—despite the views of the party opposite.
There are signs that the Government are conscious of the mounting pressure of public opinion; and it is only public opinion which shifts them. That is why we have initiated a great petition which is now in circulation, and for which three hon. Members opposite have declared their support, and which condemns the holding to ransom of the people of South Wales by these finance corporations.
I have in my possession a copy of a letter which was circulated by Mr. A. F. Dolman, a solicitor, of Bridge Street, Newport, Monmouth, to solicitors in South Wales, in which he says:
The Lord Chancellor has asked for particulars of (1) any cases of actual hardship (2) of any hardships which are thought to result from the present system, and which may perhaps not have been brought to the attention of the Leasehold Committee and (3) to any new factors since 1950 which may have altered the situation in the meantime.
I have tried to base my remarks this afternoon as an answer to these three questions. I believe that I have provided instances of actual hardship. I believe I have provided instances of hardship which could not possibly have been brought to the Leasehold Committee because they are the results of the new factors of the town and country planning legislation, the Rent Act, 1957, and the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and these are new factors which, since 1950, have altered the situation completely.
I therefore believe that we have a right to ask the Government to think again. In the debate in 1953, my hon. Friend the

Member for Leicester, North-East stated that the root of the issue was whether we agree that it is the right of the tenant to decide whether he wishes to buy the freehold or extend the lease, or whether we believe it is the right of the landlord to decide whether the tenant shall buy, whether he shall renew, or whether he will take the property. We have no doubt in saying that it is time the tenant was emancipated from his present subservience to the landlord.
We believe that there is no more honoured word, no more sweet sounding word, in the language than "home". We are fighting for the homes of our people, and I hope that the Attorney-General will realise that today we speak for people who are deeply moved and deeply angered by the way in which exploitation is being conducted. Whether people own leaseholds or not, they hate to see injustice. The present system is immoral, is unjust, and is a denial of democracy, because it weighs the law down on one side.
The Welsh National Anthem begins with the words:
Mae hen wlad fy nhadau".
"The land of my fathers is dear unto me." We ask the Government to accept the Motion so that the land of Wales can belong to the Welsh people and not to finance corporations, as at present.

4.21 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has moved the Motion standing in the name of his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself with the eloquence and charm that we have come to expect from him. Of course, the hon. Gentleman mixed with that charm some harsh comments about me and about my hon. Friends, but we also expect that from him. His eloquence and charm will not, I hope, lead the House to accept without question all the allegations and charges that he has thought right to prefer.
The hon. Gentleman has for a long time been an opponent of the leasehold system, in so far as that relates to ground leases. I have heard him make many speeches on the subject, and, if he will not take it amiss, may I say that I think that his speech today was the best that I have heard him make. It was, I have


no doubt, largely due to the activities of the hon. Gentleman that the Socialist Government appointed the Committee, to which he referred, presided over first by Lord Uthwatt and then by Lord Jenkins, to report upon these matters.
That Committee sat for a very long time and conducted a very full inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the majority of that Committee, after prolonged investigation, did not recommend that an occupying tenant of residential or other premises should be given the right to purchase compulsorily the freehold or any other prior interests in the premises. Nor did they consider any other form of leasehold enfranchisement desirable in addition to that existing under the Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 153, and the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920.
The Committee went on to recommend that occupying ground lessees should be given security of tenure. Then, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in 1954 we introduced the Bill which, after prolonged debate and discussion, reached the Statute Book as the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is true—this is really the complaint of the hon. Gentleman—that it contained no proposals for leasehold enfranchisement. But it did, among other things, provide for security of tenure for occupying lessees of residential property.
The hon. Gentleman and I took part in, I think, nearly all of those debates and, to me, what the hon. Gentleman has said today had a very familiar ring. Perhaps at this point I ought to say what I have said in all the debates on this subject in which I have taken part. I must disclose to the House, in accordance with the usual custom, such interest as I have in this matter. I say straight away that I have no interest in any property at all in South Wales, so that all the harsh things said by the hon. Gentleman about property owners and finance corporations and landlords in South Wales do not apply to me. I am a trustee of a trust which owns a considerable amount of property and which does let that property on ground leases. But, so far as I am aware, none of the ground leases is a ground lease of residential property. I have said that more than once in these debates until I

am tired of saying it. But I think it only right to say it once again.
It is true that eleven years have elapsed since the Jenkins Committee reported, but I differ from the hon. Gentleman when he says that the position of tenants holding ground leases to residential property is today worse than it was then. In my submission, and as I shall seek to show, their position is much better than it was when the Jenkins Committee reported, in consequence of the legislation placed on the Statute Book by a Conservative Government. We provided that security of tenure despite the termination of the ground lease—security which the party opposite failed to provide when in power.
Today, and on other occasions, the hon. Gentleman has bitterly attacked the ground lease system. While I am not speaking on behalf of Western Ground Rents, or any finance corporation, or any landlord, I should like to say a word generally about that system. I do not think that an attack on the system in general is justified. When the owner of land puts up a building and lets it, he demands and obtains from the lessee a much higher rent than he does when he lets the land and the lessee undertakes to erect the building. In the latter case, instead of paying the increased rent for renting the building, the tenant puts his money into putting up the building. In many instances, that has advantages both for the ground lessee and the ground lessor.
It is a commonplace that towards the end of a long ground lease the tenant is paying a far lower rent for the occupation of that property than the property would command in the open market. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West would not deny that many, if not all, of the ground lessees in South Wales are paying far less than they would be paying in rent for council houses or for similar property on the market today.

Mr. G. Thomas: They paid the premium.

The Attorney-General: The property is not theirs. The bargain made was that they would rent the land and put a building on it. What the hon. Gentleman keeps saying—and what, of course, is wrong—is that they are in homes


which they own. They are the homes in which they live, but they do not own them.

Mr. Thomas: They built them.

The Attorney-General: That was part of the bargain originally made. That is what happens under ground leases, whether it is residential property or any other kind of property. I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to alter the system. I am seeking to give reasons why the system has its advantages.
Ground leases have been granted, not only 150 years ago but all the time, and to my mind the system has some advantages. The other day, in a supplementary question to me, the hon. Gentleman spoke of ground lessees having bought their homes. But that is not the case. If they have bought their homes, they would not have to pay rent.

Mr. Thomas: What have they bought?

The Attorney-General: What they have bought is a long lease.

Mr. Raymond Gower: May I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? He said that if people had bought their homes they would not be paying any rent. Surely that is wrong. They can buy a freehold and still be charged rent. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is inaccurate.

The Attorney-General: If they have bought the freehold they do not pay rent any longer—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] They may create a rant charge, but the property is not held by landlord and tenant even then.
The hon. Gentleman has said that having to pay a full economic rent shocks these people. I am quoting his words and I hope that I am not misquoting him. But the tenant of premises falling within the protection of the 1954 Act is not—as the hon. Gentleman has suggested more than once—at the mercy of the landlord. The landlord cannot hold the tenant to ransom. He is not judge and jury in his own cause. Under the 1954 Act, if the tenant's lease expires, he can hold on and he and the landlord can agree a new rent.
But if they fail to agree as to the rent, the county court will fix the rent at what, in the opinion of the court, is

a reasonable figure for the dwelling-house. That is the statutory provision created by the 1954 Act, which does provide for security of tenure.

Mr. G. Thomas: A tenant in his own house.

The Attorney-General: A tenant in the house which he has rented.

Mr. Thomas: He bought it.

The Attorney-General: It is no use quarrelling about that. What he bought was an interest in the lease.

Mr. Leo Abse: Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool) rose—

The Attorney-General: I should like to continue my speech. There is plenty of time.
The position has changed in the last eleven years in this respect. Eleven years ago, such tenants had no protection at all. They could be strictly held to the terms of their contracted bargains and forced to leave their houses at the end of the leases. Now, as I have said, thanks to the 1954 Act, they have security of tenure, and it is given to them at a fair price, fixed if need be by the county court.

Mr. James Callaghan: How long?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says, "How long?" They can continue, and the landlords can only get possession if there is a plan for redevelopment.

Mr. Callaghan: Do they not become statutory tenants under the Rent Restriction Acts, and, if that is so, does it not mean that amendment of the Rent Restriction Acts could and would remove the protection from them?

The Attorney-General: An amendment of the statute law might remove certain protection given to them by the 1954 Act. The law can always be altered one way or the other. I am talking about the present position, compared with what it was before our 1954 Act, and it is merely a historical review of the situation. What I am asserting, and I do not think that anyone will seriously deny it, is that the 1954 Act did change the position of the tenants for the better.

Mr. John Morris: Surely the security of tenure created by the 1954


Act was fictitious, in that, first, if the landlord wishes to develop the property, he can remove the tenant, and, secondly, he has the ordinary remedy under the Rent Act and can get possession?

The Attorney-General: I do not regard that as fictitious. I think that the protection he has had since the 1954 Act gives real security of tenure—and this is an important factor—because he can go on remaining upon the premises after his lease has terminated.
The hon. Gentleman has said that having to pay the full economic rent shocks them, but let us bear in mind that they are in a better position than those who go to South Wales and seek to negotiate a lease of a house. They can stay on where they are, and, if need be, go to the county court to get a reasonable rent fixed. It is easy to use unjustified and extravagant language on this subject. I must confess that I do not consider that the security of tenure given on these terms can rightly be criticised.
I do not think, either, that one should exaggerate the size of the problem in South Wales. For the last eleven years or more the hon. Gentleman has constantly attacked Western Ground Rents, a company which owns, I am told, about 10,700 residential properties in South Wales let on ground leases. I am told, too, that during the years 1958–59–60, only two leases held by this company expired. Neither property was occupied by the leaseholder.
In one case, the company took over the statutory tenant; in the other, it sold the freehold to the occupier. I am also informed that between now and 1970, 73 of the company's ground leases will expire in Cardiff and 56 outside Cardiff, a total of 129, and, of those, 50 are occupied by the lessee. These are the facts, of which I have been informed, about that position.
The Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman calls upon the Government
to introduce forthwith legislation enabling leaseholders who are owner-occupiers to purchase the freeholds of their homes at a fair and reasonable cost.
That is to say, to introduce legislation to enable leaseholders who are occupying the properties to engage in compulsory purchase of other individual's property. I must say that it would require very

strong grounds indeed to convince me that such a step would be right.
Then, what is meant by "fair and reasonable cost"? The hon. Gentleman has left that open today, but he has had leave to introduce a Bill, which has been published and which shows his views on the subject. I rather gather that what he means by "fair and reasonable cost" is so many years' purchase of the ground rent. I would ask him to consider quite seriously whether that would be fair and reasonable. I myself would not have thought it right to ignore the value of what would be bought; that is to say, the value of the reversion.
The Motion limits the giving of this right of compulsory purchase to owner-occupiers. Of course, there is a very natural sympathy with owner-occupiers, whether they hold under a ground lease or any other lease, when that lease is coming towards its end, but if this right was given to the owner-occupier to purchase at a price related to the ground rent, the purchaser could sub-let the next day at the full market rent. Is there really any hardship which would justify putting him in the position where he could do this? I am sure, having heard the hon. Gentleman and all he has to say—and I did not interrupt him—that I do not think that he has established that there is.
If the owner-occupier were to be given the opportunity to do this, why should the ground lessee who has sub-let his property for many years not be able to do the same thing? I do not understand why the argument applies to one and should not apply to the other. Suppose we gave this right for which the hon. Gentleman asks to the ground lessee and he enfranchised his property. He could sell it the next day at the fair market price, reflecting the value of the reversion, which, presumably, he is unwilling to pay. I find it a little surprising to hear the Opposition urging changes in the law which would permit of this profiteering.
I would remind the House that the minority Report of the Leasehold Committee, signed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), proposed that the price payable on the compulsory enfranchisement of the leasehold


should be the fair market value of the reversion, with the sitting tenant protected by the Rent Restriction Acts, so there is a division of view, quite obviously, in the party opposite. That is what is meant by a fair price for acquisition, and that division of view has been present throughout all our debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Indeed, it has, among the party opposite, and the hon. Gentleman has sought to conceal that division by saying airily that we can leave that problem to be solved by legislation. The view expressed by those who signed the minority Report differs from the view of the hon. Gentleman.
I gather that the hon. Gentleman's view is that it should be so many years' purchase of the ground rent, and that, in my submission to the House, is a basis which is, by its very nature, bound to be unfair and to do injustice. If we want to do justice on this, we must look not only at the position of the leaseholder but also at that of the landlord. They are not all great landlords, and not all finance corporations.
It must be very rare indeed for the present lessors and lessees of these properties to be the persons who were parties to the original ground leases which are now approaching their end. We know that the freeholds have changed hands. Many of the leases must have changed hands, too. Others, again, have been sub-let by the ground lessees. In fact, I understand that more than two—thirds of the leasehold property in South Wales is occupied not by the ground lessee, but by a tenant paying an ordinary rack rent.
When the freeholds and the leases changed hands—this is a point that I would ask the House to bear in mind—the prices paid must have reflected the value of the property being bought and sold. The price paid by the freeholder would reflect the value of the reversion—not merely the capitalised value of the ground rent which the hon. Gentleman, with all his talk of fair and reasonable cost, would give him as compensation for expropriating his interest in the property.
When the lease changed hands, the lessee must have paid a price that took into consideration both the fact that he was buying a wasting asset and the fact

that he would, at the end of his lease, be liable under the repairing covenants. No one can seriously believe that when he bought his lease a fair and reasonable price for the freehold would have been what he paid for the lease and the capitalised value of the ground rent.
What the hon. Member proposes is a right of compulsory purchase to be given to a private individual of a confiscatory nature which would give the leaseholder an uncovenanted benefit and not compensate the freeholder for what he was parting with. I cannot think that this would be right. I know that this subject arouses great feeling and emotions. The hon. Gentleman certainly has left me in no doubt of that. I was delighted to hear him say today that he is no longer pressing for an inquiry, because only last week he was demanding one with all the emphasis at his command.

Mr. G. Thomas: I have changed my mind about that.

The Attorney-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in due course change his mind a little more on this subject than he has on this point.
While I say that I know that this subject arouses great feeling and emotion, I cannot think that that is a good basis for legislation. It was so long ago as 1953, in our debate on the White Paper, that a very hard thing was said about some hon. Members of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said:
Some of my hon. Friends appear to have an emotional fixation about the discarded Liberal Party policy of enfranchisement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th April. 1953; 514, c. 2453–4.]
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West, in the course of his speech and on other occasions, has sought to represent that landlords have been demanding extortionate prices for the sale of the freehold. By that, if I understand him rightly, he means prices in excess of the capital value of the ground rent. But I should be most surprised if he can produce—I should be glad if he would send it to me—evidence of prices being asked in excess of the fair value of the reversion. If he can produce that evidence, I should be glad to see it.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken today and on other occasions with great


passion of the landlord being judge and jury in his own cause, by which he seemed, as I understood him, to mean that the landlord was free to refuse any offer which he considered unreasonable. In that sense, of course, the lessee is himself judge and jury in his own cause because he is equally free to refuse an unreasonable offer.

Mr. G. Thomas: But he will lose his house.

The Attorney-General: No. Certainly, he is free to do so, for the Landlord and Tenant Act has put him in a strong bargaining position if his landlord wishes to sell. If the landlord makes no offer, he merely holds over at the end of the lease. He is in a strong bargaining position—this is what the hon. Gentleman ignores—because he has this security of tenure given him by the 1954 Act and cannot be got out of the house unless it is wanted for redevelopment.
Despite the eloquence and the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman moved the Motion, the case for legislation on the lines proposed in it and in the Bill which he has introduced is not, in my submission, made out. Examination of the facts, so far as they are available to us, does not establish that it would be either right or fair to introduce confiscatory legislation, legislation giving a right of compulsory purchase to individuals at prices less than the value of what they purchase. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he tell the House whether he has any criticisms whatever of the present system of leasehold tenure of land, and, if so, what they are?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Attorney-General: I shall not give way to the temptation to reply at full length to the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that he was so much of a fisherman, but this time the fish will not rise to the fly which he has cast.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Following the very powerful and effective opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—I congratulate him heartily upon his

speech—I had expected the Minister for Welsh Affairs to rise and close the debate by accepting the Motion. But it appears, following the speech of the Attorney-General, that we have to continue to try to persuade the Government.
I should like to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman of one thing immediately. There is no division on this Motion on this side of the House. Indeed, there are hon. Members on the Government side who are in sympathy with it. Moreover, two of the most important newspapers in Wales are also in sympathy with it.
Listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I was reminded of a question asked in the House more than fifty years ago by the then Member of Parliament for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. David Lloyd George). His question was:
Who made 10,000 people owners of the soil and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth?
That question is very relevant in this debate, because the 10,000 owners have been reduced by take-over bids and modern financial movements, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend. But masses of the people are still regarded as trespassers in the land of their birth.
It is not only we on this side of the House who feel keenly about the matter. The Western Mail this morning refers to the matter as something near to the heart of Wales. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), on 1st April, 1960, when he introduced his own Bill, said:
…this is one of the major subjects of controversy….
I remind the hon. Gentleman of a further statement that he made. He said that it can
truly be claimed that the rank and file, whether they be Conservative, Socialist, Liberal, Nationalist, or anything else, are largely united"—
that is the word, "united"
in their dislike of the prevailing system of leasehold tenure as it affects dwelling houses in the Principality.
The hon. Gentleman also said:
The problem exists to an extent"—
this is the answer to what we have been told by the Attorney-General, who said that it is not worse—
which is scarcely to be appreciated by non-Welsh Members.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1960; Vol. 620. c. 1764–5.]


We have had proof of that again this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) also supported his hon. Friend. He said that the leasehold system was regarded by his constituents as a curse on Wales. That is strong language. He said that deep concern—similar words to those which we use in our Motion—was felt that more effective action had not been taken to solve the problem. Not only are hon. Members on both sides concerned, but the Press of Wales is also concerned. I shall refer to the problem outside Cardiff, for I also speak for West Wales.
I pay tribute to the editor of the South Wales Evening Post for an editorial published last Thursday in anticipation of this debate. The editorial said that the plea that we are making in this Motion,
…for a change in an outmoded and iniquitous system"—
Those are not our words. The South Wales Evening Post is a very good friend to Members opposite—
bequeathed to Welshmen by an earlier generation…is a just one, and Welsh Conservatives should support it.
The problem is of fundamental importance, and I urge the Attorney-General to realise that the Government should acknowledge that grave concern is felt not only on this side of the House, but also throughout the Principality.
Since I became a Member of this House I have been made acutely aware, both by volumes of correspondence—which I will not quote because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak—and also by personal meetings with the people I have the honour to represent, that they resent more than any other social injustice the way in which the leasehold system operates in Wales. It is also appropriate that we should be having this debate at a time when the effects of the present system are being felt more keenly than ever before.
Here, I want to cross swords with the Attorney-General about one comment which he made. He referred to the Jenkins Report. This was published in 1950, and it anticipated the present situation. The Report, referring to long leases, said:
…there appears to be little justification for the belief that a specially large number is due to expire in the next year or two…

But the next paragraph says:
in about ten years' time, however, the effect of the mid-nineteenth century development should begin to be felt and over a period of 20 to 25 years there may be a noticeably higher rate of expiry.
The ten years is now up. That is why, as expected by the Jenkins Committee, the leasehold problem is now becoming increasingly serious.
I disagree with the Attorney-General when he says that the position is not worse than it was ten years ago. It is very much worse. Today, more than ever before, with these leases increasingly expiring, it is realised by many people, for the first time, that the ground landlord is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, both judge and jury in his own cause. It is the landlord himself who decides whether he will negotiate at all with the leaseholders about either renewal of the leases or the sale of freehold rights. He demands to know what terms they are offering, and at no stage is there any sign of a freely-negotiated contract. I am sure that many hon. Members could produce evidence to that effect.
In my constituency of Gower, more than half the house properties are leasehold, involving, in many cases, entire villages in industrial areas. Names like Gwaun-cae-Gurwen, Cwmgorse, and Penclawdd come to mind. Last Sunday, a deputation came to see me. It consisted of six men who live in the same street, and it was led by an ex-miner who is over 70 years old—the best possible type of man. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) that this man is also a pillar of Nonconformity in Wales.
This man has lived in the same house for forty years and, by continuous improvements, has practically rebuilt it. It is not merely his house, it is his cherished home. Today, however, due to the existing leasehold system, he faces the threat of losing it after forty years. So, when defenders of the leasehold system talk about the sanctity of contract, we are entitled to ask, "What about the sanctity of homes?" There can be no sanctity about any contract if it is unjust. It has become the practice of the Government, as we heard again today, to defend their refusal to introduce leasehold reform by referring to the complexity of the problem and to the legal difficulties


For instance, the present Lord Chancellor, when he was Home Secretary, said, during the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs:
I spent many months trying to see whether I could find a scheme of leasehold enfranchisement which would work. I tried, and I failed. What has been shown is that when a genuine and well-intentioned effort is made to meet the difficulties which I have propounded, the only result is to create further difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th March, 1954; c. 18.]
The emphasis is always on difficulties, but the truth is that this is not a question of difficulties, but of objections. It is the Gentleman's objection to the principle of leasehold enfranchisement which is proving to be the main stumbling block to reform. But we on this side of the House have no difficulty, nor have many other people, because we have accepted the principle. The crucial decision that has to be made here today is not one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West rightly said, of detail here and there—that is not the issue—but whether we are to give a tenant, in the case of an owner-occupier, priority over the landlord's interests.
In the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, to which the Attorney-General referred at great length, I acknowledge that the Government have moved a little towards breaking the sanctity of the law of contract in this matter. Indeed, during the Second Reading debate on that Act, the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) protested at what he called
…the violence which the Bill does to the law of Con tract."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1954; Vol. 522. c. 1837.]
Thus, the Government have already broken into the law of contract, and, despite its many weaknesses, that Act recognised—though in a severely qualified way—that tenants have some rights.
I appeal, therefore, to the Minister for Welsh Affairs, in particular, to go a step further when he winds up the debate and to accept this Motion, recognising that a Welshman's home, too, is also his castle. I hope that, after this debate, we shall find that the Welsh day this year has become memorable because the right hon. Gentleman has

agreed with us that no longer are we to be regarded as trespassers in the land of our birth.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: I start by disclosing my interest as a director of Western Ground Rents, which I have done before. I should like to bring the problem into perspective. Throughout all these debates the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has exaggerated the problem and has erroneously stated the number of leases that will fall in. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, only two leases belonging to Western Ground Rents have fallen due in 1958, 1959 and 1960, and in the next ten years only 73 leases will fall in. Nonetheless, as I say, throughout the debates the hon. Gentleman has made wild and exaggerated claims that the whole of Cardiff is to be filched from the old owners—

Mr. G. Thomas: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that he never said anything of the sort, but I have extracted what he has said in the past. In the debate on the Address on 7th March, 1950, the hon. Gentleman said:
Within the next 10 years, half of the city of Cardiff will be taken from the business people and householders by these finance corporations, unless leasehold reform is introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March. 1950: Vol. 472, c. 261.]
That is quite inaccurate as regards Western Ground Rents. As I say, only two of its leases have fallen in up to 1961—

Mr. Stan Awbery: But how many will fall in?

Mr. Foster: I am, at the moment, confining my attention purely to the wild, exaggerated statements made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. He made a similar statement to the House on 2nd November, 1950. He then said:
…between now and Christmas a large number of homes in Cardiff will be lost to a financial corporation if the Government do not protect the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 426.]
That is quite inaccurate. It is nothing like that.
Again, on 7th March, 1950, speaking in this House, the hon. Gentleman said:
In the Grangetown Ward, no fewer than 4,000 houses will be taken away from those who purchased them by these finance corporations, unless some action is taken during the lifetime of this Parliament…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 261.]
The fact is that there are only 3,139 houses in the whole of Grangetown. Of those, 951 are owned by Western Ground Rents. None fall in before 1974, and only 62 between 1974 and 1989. Why did the hon. Gentleman think that 4,000 houses would be taken away unless something was done in the lifetime of that Parliament?
On 15th March, 1948, the hon. Gentleman asked:
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that notices are being given on a large scale in Cardiff to people whose leases fall due within the next five years and that tenants are being asked to pay a purchase price of 175 years' purchase or lose their homes…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1693.]
The fact is that no notices were given by Western Ground Rents, who owned a substantial part of Cardiff. As to the purchase price of 175 years' purchase of the ground rent, the ground rent was only £1 a year, making £175, but the house was worth between £2,000 and £3,000—and we offered it to the tenant for £175—

Mr. G. Thomas: What about the cases I have given today?

Mr. Foster: It is important that the House should know how far the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the case in the past. I can quite understand him squirming now and his hon. and right hon. Friends trying—

Mr. Awbery: The hon. and learned Gentleman is in a position to know. Let us have the truth.

Mr. Foster: In my experience, people do not make wild and exaggerated statements.
In Tribune of 6th December, 1946, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
In South Wales thousands of leases are falling due each year, and this is the ground speculator's opportunity.
Quite untrue.
Speak mg in the House on 14th November, 1946, the hon. Gentleman alleged that under the present law people were

being blackmailed and robbed, and that the Marquess of Bute had sold the ground rents of 20,000 houses. He had sold the ground rents of 11,000 houses.
On 14th November, 1946, the hon. Gentleman said:
Within the next 10 years the majority of the leases in Cardiff will be falling due."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 265.]
As I have said, in the next ten years 73 leases will fall due in Western Ground Rents share of Cardiff.
Today, the hon. Gentleman repeats his inaccuracies. He says that 10,000 houses in Cardiff—

Mr. G. Thomas: When did I say 10,000 houses?

Mr. Foster: It was either 10,000 or 12,000. If the hon. Gentleman said 12,000 houses, that makes it worse—

Mr. Thomas: I might point out that I have these figures from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken).

Mr. W. T. Aitken: The hon. Member says that, but I do not remember giving them to him. Would he tell me when and where I gave them to him, because I have no recollection at all of giving him any such figures?

Mr. Thomas: It may be that the hon. Gentleman's memory is failing, because when he last spoke in this House he mentioned the number of houses and I did him the courtesy of quoting the same figure. Further, the hon. Gentleman said that Western Ground Rents never refused to sell anyone the freehold, but he has had to eat his words and so has the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Foster: We are at cross-purposes. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that in the next twenty years the leases of 10,000 or 12,000 houses would fall in. That is quite untrue, and hon. Members can see that that cannot be right, because the number of houses in Cardiff in 1871 was only 5,000. In 1881 there were only 12,000 houses—

Mr. James Callaghan: And in 1891?

Mr. Foster: In 1891 there were 20,000 houses. It is, therefore, quite impossible for the leases of 12,000 houses


to fall in in the next twenty years—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is impossible, because, judging by the experience of Western Ground Rents, in that period we have 731 leases falling due—

Mr. Callaghan: It is quite right that they will not fall in, but the reason will be that a great many ground landlords are selling, and the intense resentment felt against the hon. and learned Gentleman's company is caused by the fact that if the company does want to sell it asks such extortionate prices.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the point. There are not that number of leases falling in in the next twenty years. It is a misstatement by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—

Mr. Awbery: That is quibbling.

Mr. Foster: No, it is not quibbling. If the matter is presented as a great problem, with the leases of thousands of houses falling in by Christmas or in the lifetime of a Parliament, the House gets a very different idea of the problem.
Let us see what sort of people the hon. Member for Cardiff, West supports. In 1948 he wrote to Western Ground Rents:
I have been approached by Mr. I. Gaba…whose lease of the above properties expired last March.
The properties mentioned are Nos. 14, 15 and 16 Patrick Street:
I understand the property is very old and that you have asked Mr. Gaba for the sum of £575 to renew the leases. He finds it impossible to pay this figure and in view of the fact that he wishes to buy the houses to help his daughter who is in poor circumstances, I should be glad if you would give sympathetic consideration to his request…
How did it turn out? It turned out, as is shown by the answer of Western Ground Rents, that the hon. Member was wrong. The figure of £575 was for six houses, not three. It was for the freehold and not for the renewal of the lease. Mr. Isaac Gaba purchased the lease of six houses in March, 1940, for £200. After purchasing them, he must have received at least the Schedule "A" valuation, which would amount to an income of £1,152 for his outlay of £200.
During the time that Mr. Gaba owned these houses, the hon. Gentleman was

making representations for someone not in occupation. Western Ground Rents said:
…the occupiers state no repairs have been done, the War Damage has not been attended to and the normal day to day maintenance has been done by them"—

Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it quite correct for an hon. and learned Member to quote correspondence between an hon. Member and a company, even if the hon. and learned Friend is connected with the company, in this extraordinary way?

Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order. Is it not deplorable that a Member of Parliament writing in his private capacity to a company should then find his name being bandied about in this way by another hon. Member? Surely, this is reprehensible—but something we expect from the directors of Western Ground Rents. To make it even worse, I have great reason to believe that the person of whom the hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking is now dead. I think that it is deplorable.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since I am involved, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I cannot remember the incident to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers because, in the intervening years, I have dealt with thousands of constituents' cases. I therefore cannot check the accuracy or otherwise of what the hon. and learned Gentleman produces from the files of Western Ground Rents. But, since it would have been possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman—who, I realise, is a director of Western Ground Rents in Cardiff—to have produced many other appealing letters I have written for owner-occupiers, why does he only single out this one from twelve years ago? Is it not a breach of our privileges in this House that we should use our position as Members of the House, representing our constituents, to advance our own financial interests? Is not that a breach of privilege?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The responsibility of an hon. Member for his statements rests entirely on him. It is not out of order. As for any interest the hon. and learned Member has, he has declared it to the House.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I may say so, you have a great responsibility to safeguard the traditions of the House as well as the order of the House. May I ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the traditions of the House that in the circumstances quoted by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), an hon. Member should so use his position to produce private correspondence, which, as far as I know, he has no warrant to do, in order to bolster up his case on behalf of his company?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the Chair can comment on the conduct of hon. Members in that way.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Hon. Members very often declare their interest—they may give information which comes from a particular industry or profession—but it is a very different matter for the hon. and learned Member to devote his entire speech to delivering the kind of argument that he might put quite properly in a court of law where he was openly and directly paid for it. To do so in the House of Commons, when he seems to be acting under the same kind of principle, is utterly disgraceful. Again, might I remind you, Sir, that this matter was not originally raised from this side? Many hon. Members on this side were extremely reticent about raising it, because they were aghast about what was happening. It was originally raised, quite properly, by an hon. Member opposite. We are witnessing a disgusting exhibition, and I must say that I have never before heard anything like it in the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point that rests with me. If the hon. Member has a substantial complaint against the hon. and learned Member he should put down a Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Morris: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. and learned Member to confine his remarks to what is happening in Cardiff, ignoring the remainder of Wales and all the other considerations?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That depends on what the hon. and learned Member speaks about.

Mr. Foster: I am glad to see that it hurts.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member is getting rich out of Cardiff.

Mr. Foster: Obviously, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West did not like it because it showed the kind of people he was appealing for. It is quite obvious that Western Ground Rents has been attacked throughout these debates, throughout the years, and the hon. Member did not spare Western Ground Rents. Obviously, it is quite in order that Western Ground Rents should defend itself.

Mr. Morris: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. and learned Member specifically to come to this House and confine the whole of his speech to defending one company, without declaring exactly the extent of his interest in that company?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member's speech is a matter for himself.

Mr. Foster: As I was saying, Western Ground Rents is held up as robbing the widow and as refusing to answer tenants who want to buy their leasehold interests, and it is obviously only just that Western Ground Rents should have a spokesman.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the hon. and learned Member is so clearly misunderstanding his function as a Member of Parliament, will you allow me to move a Motion that he be no longer heard?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. Foster: I can understand that when one points out the inaccuracies and mis-statements levelled at Western Ground Rents, hon. Members opposite should get in a heat and try to raise a lot of points of order. If I may pass now to the policy we have adopted in Western Ground Rents—

Mr. Awbery: May I ask the hon. Member one question? I am rather disturbed as to whether he can answer it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member has not given way.

Mr. Foster: I think that my speech has been sufficiently interrupted up to now.

Mr. G. Thomas: Come and make it in Cardiff.

Mr. Foster: The objection of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is that when leases fall in the people are robbed of their homes. He said in his speech today that Western Ground Rents gives the tenants 30 days in which to accept the terms or lose their property. That is another inaccuracy. Until the leases fall in, they cannot lose their property. If somebody writes in and asks the ground landlord what he would have to pay for the purchase of a freehold or have to pay for a new lease, it is only natural to state the terms in which that offer to the landlord can be accepted or not. It is a complete misrepresentation of the situation, if there are 20 years or 25 years of a lease to run, and if the landlord says he wants £x for the freehold and would like an answer in 30 days, for the hon. Member for Cardiff, West to say that the tenant is going to lose his home in 30 days. It is typical of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West to get a series of mis-statements into this debate and a series of emotional statements which have no foundation in fact. I have given some instances.
If the ground landlord offers to sell the freehold for the price of the reversion calculated according to the tables, then it seems to me that he is offered a fair and reasonabe price. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who makes the tables?"] The tables are made on mathematical calculations. If the party opposite is also going to overthrow mathematics in this proposed legislation, it will have to go a very long way. What hon. Members opposite would wish is for the tenant to have his house as a freehold under the market value so that he can then go and sell it.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: How does the hon. and learned Member justify a rise from £180 to £500 in premiums in one year if it is a mathematical calculation?

Mr. Foster: The tables may have been worked out wrongly or the market price may have gone up—

Mr. Awbery: Will the hon. and learned Member give way? I have rather an important question to ask.

Mr. Foster: I cannot give way. I must answer the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen).—or if the market price has gone up for that house in those two years, the market price is the reversion price, discounted by 5 per cent. In the majority of cases, when a tenant asks for the sale of the reversion, he is himself wanting to sell the house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That can be proved.

Mr. Abse: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Foster: No, I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to hear the truth.

Mr. Foster: I can understand the heat of hon. Members opposite. I can understand their excitement when confronted with the facts. The facts are that in the great majority of cases tenants in Cardiff—

Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Gentleman has never been there.

Mr. Foster: As I was saying, the facts are that when tenants in Cardiff ask for the freehold to be sold to them it is because they propose to resell the house. The reason is that if the freehold is married with the reversionary interest one gets a bigger price. It is no good the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) saying that is not true. It is true.

Mr. Callaghan: I know a good deal more about it than the hon. and learned Gentleman does.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows a good deal more about it than I do. I have shown by my quotation from the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that he was not aware of the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Hon. Members opposite always shout "Shame", "Disgusting" or "Sit down" when they are confronted with the facts.

Mr. G. Thomas: Mr. G. Thomas rose—

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the Chair he will be allowed to reply to my speech.
I want to bring the facts to the attention of hon. Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are the directors' fees?"] As if it matters what are the directors' fees. Hon. Members will find that they are very modest indeed. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West mutters that I have made a fool of myself. I understand his resentment. The policy of Western Ground Rents has been attacked in debate after debate by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. The policy of the company is to sell the freehold to every tenant who wants to buy it except in very exceptional cases. The exceptional cases are those where, for reasons of good estate management, the freehold should not be sold. That, again, is true.

Mr. Callaghan: Every reputable solicitor in Cardiff denies what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: On a point of order. I came into the Chamber because I wished to hear the debate. The point of order which I wish to put to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is whether it is not intolerable that hon. Members who, rightly or wrongly, dislike an argument should make it quite impossible for the argument to be fairly put or far it to be heard.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Donald Box: Be quiet.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must not say "Be quiet" to me. Is it not exceptional, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we have to sit here for years, as I have done for sixteen years, before hearing a director's report on behalf of his company?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that the debate will continue quietly.

Mr. Foster: In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I gather that at this stage I have the approval of hon. Members opposite. The reason my speech has lasted so long is because of

the interruptions of hon. Members opposite.
I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in asking the House to reject this Motion, because the debate is founded on facts which have been mis-stated and which have been laid in an atmosphere of vindictive emotionalism.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Llywelyn Williams: I do not want to refer to the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster). I think that it was in shocking taste, and I strongly disapprove of the whole idea of an Englishman interfering in Welsh affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am certain that no Englishman would have dared to interfere in a debate on Scottish affairs as the hon. and learned Member has done in this debate, particularly when he has such a very obvious personal financial interest in the subject of the debate.
In almost eleven years' experience of the House, I have never found it more difficult to contain myself than I did at one stage of the speech of the Attorney-General. Physically, I suppose, we were about 12 or 15 feet apart, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking we wore thousands of miles apart. He seemed 'to be speaking from another world from that in which I live. He seemed to be speaking from outer space. He did not seem to see things with the same purpose in mind as I see them.
For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that when a person has either bought a house or built a house and has occupied it for the best part of fifty or sixty years, during which time he has looked after it carefully, that that house is not that person's home is just making language completely meaningless.
The whole trouble of this question of leasehold reform is, basically, that it has relevance for a comparatively small part of the British Isles. It means nothing at all in Scotland. Scotland has no leasehold system. The residents of the larger part of England would not know what we were talking about, because in most parts of the country leases are for 999 years. Thus, to all intents and purposes,


the properties concerned are complete freeholds.
I am certain that if this leasehold system, which I unhesitatingly call an iniquitous and unjust system, obtained in every part of the United Kingdom, no Government, Tory or Labour, would have withstood to this day the pressure that would have been brought to bear upon them. It is a reflection—and the reflection is as much on hon. Members on this side of the House as on hon. Members opposite—on our sectionalism, on our segmented political outlook on life, that there is in all those areas and among representatives of those areas not concerned with the leasehold system an almost complete indifference to what I would call a basic and fundamental issue.
I could never understand in 1953 and 1954 when Lord Morrison, as he is now, was conducting our opposition to the commercial television Bill then before the House why it was insisted in our party that we should obey three-line Whips on an issue which all my instincts told me then meant nothing to the ordinary people of the country. As events have proved, the ordinary people of the country are not interested whether a television programme is A.B.C., B.B.C., I.T.V., X.Y.Z. or anything else. As long as they can look at television, that is all they want. We as a party have now withdrawn our opposition to commercial television. But, contemporaneously with the passage of that Bill through the House of Commons, the Landlord and Tenant Bill was going through, and at every stage of that Measure, which dealt with basic human issues, we had to make do with a two-line Whip. That proves my point that the segmentary outlook on great burning political issues is to be deprecated and deplored.
This is essentially a Welsh problem, although it has some impact in certain areas in England. If we speak to a person from the United States of America, and explain to him what happens under our leasehold system, he does not know what we are talking about. There is no other country in the world where this leasehold system obtains. It is about time that we threw off this last relic of feudalism—this last flagrant injustice. We have thrown off many flagrant injustices in the course of the last fifty or sixty years;

surely it is time that this last outstandingly flagrant injustice should be thrown overboard.
It is an acute problem not only in the capital city of Cardiff but in the industrial valleys of Wales, because our industrial system was built up from about 1850 onwards, and we have literally thousands of houses in Wales which were built under the leasehold system and whose leases are now beginning to lapse. Mr. David Rhys Grenfell, who was Father of this House for many years, wrote a fine pamphlet on leasehold enfranchisement, in which he stated that there were 350,000 houses in Wales under the leasehold system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has also written a fine Fabian pamphlet, in which he says that the total number of such houses for the whole of England and Wales is 700,000. From those figures it can be appreciated that the problem is much more acute in Wales than in other parts of the country.
The problem was brought home to me in a very clear and unforgettable way when I had the great privilege of living during one of the most formative periods of my life in the birthplace of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), in a village called Bethesda. That village, with its environs, was owned by one person—Lord Penrhyn. I have never met a finer type of men than the quarrymen of Bethesda. They are cultured and independent, and a natural product of Welsh nonconformity—a word which has been used with some opprobrium in this House, quite wrongly, because it is something to be proud of. They are the natural products of nonconformity, with its particular emphasis on the individual and individual responsibility.
I believe that in our industrial areas there is a higher percentage of owner-occupied houses than there is in English industrial areas. In many of our industrial areas the figure is as high as 50 per cent.

Mr. Arthur Probert: It is sometimes 70 per cent.

Mr. LI. Williams: I am told that in some areas it is as high as 70 per cent. The Minister for Welsh Affairs should see this problem as a personal


challenge in relation to his responsibility for Welsh problems. This is a real Welsh problem. Great injustice is being done because of the way in which this system is working out.
I do not wish to exaggerate the picture. Some people are prone to do that, and nothing is achieved by it. I agree at once that this system works in more than one way. First, there are the reasonable landlords, and the directors of landed estates, with what I would describe as a progressive social conscience. I testify willingly to the way in which the Llanover Estate, in Monmouthshire, has dealt with owner-occupiers. I bought the freehold of my home two or three years ago for what I regarded then, and still regard, as a very reasonable price. That is the common experience of those who live on that estate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is not here, but I am sure that he would agree that the Stepney Estate in Llanelly, my home town, is another with a fine and honourable record. Nobody would wish to do anything but pay tribute to the approach of these two estates to the leasehold system.
Next we come to the type of estate or company which is obviously represented by some hon. Members opposite, where a point-blank refusal is given to people wishing to purchase their own freeholds. There has never been a time when I was not a Socialist, but the seven years that I spent in Bethesda intensified my Socialism, because the basis of Socialism is a burning, abhorrent hatred of injustice. That is one thing that I have not lost. God knows—and I want to make a personal confession now—that eleven years in Parliament have robbed me of things which I am not proud of losing, some of my idealism, but I have not lost my sense of injustice, and when I remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon can remember even better than I can, how quarrymen who had actually built their own houses and had owned them for 99 years were told, at the end of that period, that everything had to be restored to Lord Penrhyn, in Penrhyn Castle, I realise that that was one of the most heart-breaking social pictures that it has ever been my lot to see.
There are some arguable propositions, but this is surely a priori; this is axiom-

atic. It just cannot be right that a person who has built a house should be held not to own it.
I cannot understand how the Attorney-General could speak so coldly of the cherished possession of a family, or a succession of families. That is why, in no pseudo-dramatic way, I say that a terrific gulf exists between us. Many people are much nearer to my way of thinking than the Attorney-General suggests, but there is surely a great gulf between us if he can tell me that such property should revert to a ground landlord who has never spent a penny-piece on it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct I am either crazy or simple and completely hopeless in my ability to understand the situation, but all the lawyers in Christendom will never persuade me that such a situation is defensible.
That is the basis of our case. That is why we have brought it forward in this debate. Our people are genuinely suffering, and are full of anxiety and fear, because of a system which is wicked and which stands condemned on all counts.
We have this point-blank refusal to allow people to purchase the freehold of the property which they have come to regard as home. There is also the question of the exorbitant prices, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said in his most moving and gripping speech, the question of people taking advantage of all the developments which have taken place in the last five years.
I shall not weary the House with more than one example. I shall not mention the commercial enterprise involved in this case, because I have appealed to it to have second thoughts and I do not want to prejudice the fresh negotiations. This widow, who is an old-age pensioner, has a small house but no ground apart from that on which the house stands. The lease has eleven years to run. The annual ground rent is 4s. a year, so I leave it to the imagination of hon. Members to decide how extensive that piece of land is.
This company, which last year made a profit of millions of pounds, one of the largest industrial enterprises in the country—paradoxically with a fine record in human relations in other aspects


but probably in this instance actuated by someone sitting in an office in London who has never seen Abertillery and who thinks only in terms of the value of property in London, has asked this poor widow to pay £175 plus solicitor's fees for the freehold of the property. This is a shocking example. Even though Ahab coveted the vineyard, he was at least prepared to pay for it. On my calculations £175 represents 875 times the ground rent. If any hon. Member can justify that, I will be horrorstruck with amazement.
I ask the Minister to conduct a new investigation. We had the Royal Commission, and we, as a party, are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir L. UngoedThomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for what they did and for the recommendations they made in the minority Report, but I ask the Minister, because he is the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and a member of the Cabinet, to say that the time has come to call a halt to a system which has caused untold mental, physical, and spiritual suffering to decent people; people who have been brought up on the virtues of thrift and independence and who have purchased their own homes. I regard it as the Minister's bounden duty to do something practical to help them.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Even though the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr. G. Thomas) in moving the Motion threw a few political quips across the floor of the House I find myself very much in sympathy with what he said.
Just over thirty years ago a Bill dealing with leasehold enfranchisement was introduced in this House by the late Daniel Hopkin, the then hon. Member for Carmarthen. It is not surprising that a succession of similar Bills have been introduced by Welsh Members since then. Indeed, as many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, throughout the years there has been a succession of leasehold Bills. From 1900 to 1914 there was one every year. In 1923 there were three such Bills, and Bills of a similar kind appeared in 1927, 1928 and 1929. The history of Parliament during the last seventy-five years is bestrewn

with the relics of abortive leasehold Bills.
The earlier Bills reflected a general United Kingdom interest in this subject, but, I think it is fair to say that since the late Daniel Hopkin introduced his Bill in 1931, a passionate interest in this subject has remained constant and unabated only in Wales.
In my constituency, in that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), and indeed in every other constituency between Pembrokeshire and Monmouthshire, every General Election candidate, irrespective of party, is likely to be asked about his attitude to this subject. It is sometimes amusing to see a "carpet-bagger" candidate quickly learning something about this subject, if he has not already done so.
The first question which the Government should ask—the first question which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs must surely ask—is why, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is right that there is no special Welsh leasehold problem, interest in, and concern about, this topic has remained constant throughout the industrial and thickly populated parts of South Wales. I suggest that there are few, if any, other parts of Great Britain where audiences of Labour, Conservative, or other supporters invariably applaud any speaker who confesses to be in favour of some modification of the present leasehold system, and give short shrift to a candidate who indulges in specialised legalistic arguments on this issue.
If, after having considered why this interest remains so great, my right hon. Friend is still doubtful, he should remember that in the last twelve months the Wales and Monmouthshire area of the Conservative and Unionist Associations has passed a resolution calling for legislation to give leaseholders of dwelling-houses the right to apply to a court or tribunal for an extension of leases, or for the right to purchase the freehold on terms to be assessed. This was a unanimous resolution passed by those who by definition are the leaders of the Conservative Party in the Principality of Wales. Would any other area in Britain have passed such a resolution?
Welsh people are largely united on this issue. What the Conservatives of Wales asked for in that resolution is not altogether dissimilar from the more general terms implied in the Motion we are considering today, because, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West pointed out, he has shifted his ground slightly and has come some way to meet those who think that a straightforward enfranchisement or some system of so many years purchase is open to severe criticism.
Those facts should convince Ministers that the issue in Wales is no ordinary one. It has been suggested that this issue has been kept alive artificially by intense propaganda. The reverse is the case. It is true that there is a South Wales Leaseholders and Owner-Occupiers' Association under the ardent direction of Mr. Watson Cliffe, but this organisation has very limited resources, and indeed has functioned to any extent only in recent years.
The issue of leasehold tenure in Wales has been, and is, kept alive by the day-to-day problems of ordinary leaseholders who are unable to obtain mortagages on leases of less than thirty-five years; those who are faced with excessive demands for an enhanced rent with or without a premium; and those who are not permitted by the owner or the property to purchase the freehold at any price. The issue is also kept alive by experienced estate agents who find themselves helpless to assist these people.
I do not wish to destroy leasehold tenure. From my experience as a solicitor and as a constituency Member, I am convinced that in many cases leasehold tenure serves a useful and valuable purpose.
Hon. Members who represent South Wales constituencies see their constituents acquiring leasehold houses. In some cases they prefer to acquire the leasehold rather than spend a capital sum of £250 or £300 on the freehold of a new house. Even so, I do not accept the argument sometimes advanced that even a measure of leasehold reform designed to give the leaseholders the opportunity to acquire the leasehold or to renew it on fair terms is likely to deter freeholders from granting leases in future. If a freeholder is happy to alienate from himself and his family the ownership of a plot of land for as long

as ninety-nine years he is not likely to be deterred by the knowledge that this may later be extended on fair and reasonable terms.
There is little doubt that our problem in many parts of Wales has arisen not from the nature of leasehold tenure but from its peculiar incidence in many parts of the Principality. I could take my right hon. Friends to streets in Barry, Cardiff and Newport where most of the houses are leasehold. There is a solid array of leasehold houses, on a 99-year term originally, much of which has expired, broken only by an occasional house the owner of which has been fortunate enough to acquire the freehold or to have the lease extended. This has had at least two results. In the first place, it is difficult to sustain the argument that all these people became leaseholders of their own free choice. How could a person who wished to own a house do other than buy one of the available houses which in most cases were leasehold? Therefore, any suggestion that these people freely entered into the contract should be modified by consideration of the fact that in most cases they had no choice.
If an estate agent in South Wales has a freehold property for sale he deems it to be such an outstanding event that he is tempted to embrazon the fact in letters of gold. Where in the United Kingdom outside South Wales would hon. Members expect to see an advertisement such as I saw recently in South Wales which declared in very large type, "Freehold dwelling house for sale: Vacant possession"? The advertisement proceeded to set out details of the accommodation.

Mr. A. R. Wise: An advertisement of that kind could be seen in the City of Westminster.

Mr. Gower: In South Wales even a 999 years' lease is something to be spoken of with awe. In one part of my constituency houses are held on a 999-year lease rather than the usual ninety-nine years and the people of that locality are regarded with something like envy by their neighbours. Another result of all this is that large numbers of dwelling-houses in parts of Wales have now leases of less than thirty-five years unexpired. This fact has a number of consequences. Mortgages can seldom be obtained on


terms of thirty-five years or less. Whole streets of such houses are at present almost unsellable because the prospective purchasers cannot obtain short-term mortgages.
I can speak with some knowledge of this matter. Both professionally and as a Member of Parliament I have tried to negotiate the acquisition of freeholds or longer leases on behalf of my clients and constituents. But the result of the situation in South Wales is that first-class legislation passed by this Government and their predecessors to enable local authorities to advance 100 per cent. to people who wish to buy is abortive in the case of many of these houses. Legislation passed to enable building societies to advance money on houses built before 1919 is also largely abortive in respect of whole streets in the towns of South Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs may say that the remedy for these people is to buy the freehold or to negotiate a now lease. In some cases they try and they succeed, but in others they fail. I have in mind the cases of those who shortly after the war, when there was a great shortage of accommodation, had to acquire homes and they bought leasehold houses which then had fifty years unexpired. Mortgages were obtainable for that period, but by now the unexpired term is so short that it is impossible to sell these houses.
In some cases freeholders have behaved extremely well. I would refer in particular to the Plymouth Estates Ltd., and Barry Dock Syndicate Ltd., both of which have sold freeholds on eminently fair terms. There is a street in Barry where some leaseholders bought from the Barry Dock Syndicate on reasonable terms, but other houses in the same street are owned by an individual who is not nearly so fair. Some people paid the syndicate about £100 but the other individual wants nearly £700 for similar small terrace houses in Barry Dock.
The same individual apparently is making similar demands in Newport. I have a letter from a correspondent in Newport which reads:
Dear Mr. Gower, I am the leaseholder of 3–4 James Street, Newport for 99 years from 25th March, 1893, at an annual ground rent of £3–31 years to run. I asked if he would sell me the reversion and he wants £500 which works out at 167 times…

Other leaseholders face even worse problems. In some parts of Barry the freeholders are a provident insurance company which sometimes sells a block of properties but rarely a single house. The reason the company gives for that is that it would be inconvenient for management to sell singly. I can understand that, but it is small consolation for the poor individual who has a lease of less than thirty-five years and wants a sufficient term to enable him to raise a mortgage. Another freeholder in South Wales is the Glamorgan County Council. Its reply to requests for the sale of freeholds is a polite refusal. I can understand that the council is dealing with public funds, but that again is small consolation to the leaseholder when he finds that he cannot hope to purchase the lease at any price.
I am glad that the Government, through the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Law Society, have taken the step of addressing a letter to solicitors asking for details of some of the difficulties which have already been described in this debate. As far as it goes, this will be helpful and it is a praiseworthy step, but solicitors are busy professional men and few of them will have kept records of the abortive cases which they have had in recent years. More knowledge about this subject could be obtained from a short conversation with estate agents in Barry, Cardiff and Newport. Many of them have described to me the difficulties and hardships they have encountered among leaseholders and the problems which arise from short leases.
I believe that I have said enough to explain why I was sadly disappointed not only by the speech but also by the unaccommodating attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I had hoped for something more. Indeed, I had been led to expect by what I read in the Western Mail that at any rate there would be some little light, some little hope. I am strengthened in that view by the form of the Opposition Motion, which does not ask for a sort of blank enfranchisement, but for legislation to enable Welsh leaseholders who are owner-occupiers to purchase their freeholds
at a fair and reasonable cost.
Is not it strange that people of all parties in Wales should be so concerned about this question? Is not this the sort of


problem to which the Government should be concerned to find a solution? In recent years there have been many Bills of this kind. I have tried myself to devise in Bills I have tendered some sort of machinery to assess a fair and reasonable price. It would make nonsense of all I have said on every platform, and of all I have said since I entered politics, if I voted with the Government tonight. I regret this deeply because I do not lightly vote against my own side, but on this issue I am sadly disappointed.
I believe that this is a real issue in the industrial parts of South Wales. What we want is not something unreasonable but something to meet the specialised needs of the localities in which we live and which we represent. I should be failing in my duty to my constituents and those who sent me to this House—to the Conservatives in Wales who nearly all take the same view that I have been expressing—if I did not take this course. For that reason, reluctantly and sadly, I shall have to vote against the Government.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I should like, first, to make a comment upon some of the observations of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). The hon. Member for Abertillery condemned the longterm leasehold system root and branch, whereas the hon. Member for Barry saw considerable virtue in it.
On a number of occasions since I have been here, whether there has been a Conservative or a Labour Government, the House has passed Bills which perpetuated the long-term leasehold system. For example, in the development corporations of the new towns the value of the long-term leasehold system has been recognised in legislation passed by parties represented on both sides of the House. It is also true that local authorities, whatever their political complexion, have shown themselves willing—indeed anxious—to perpetuate the long-term leasehold system.
Although we have heard of instances today, and while instances no doubt exist, in which that system has led to problems of great personal difficulty which have to be faced, I do not think it right to make sweeping statements in

entire condemnation of the whole system. We have heard during the course of the debate a great deal about the bad landlord and we have heard compliments paid to some good landlords. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) used very strong words indeed in relation to landlords, but the strong words he used were mild compared with words which have been used by the Minister for Welsh Affairs in relation to landlords. I shall quote his description of landlords in a speech he made in this House last year. This is what the Minister said with regard to landlords:
I think that there are some swindlers in the market, and if information is given to me I am ready to have an examination made of those people who may be sailing too close to the wind.
He ended by saying:
I should like to deal with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1599.]
The Minister was not referring to the same group of landlords as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West had in mind. The Minister was referring to that group of landlords who were taking a mean advantage of their position under the Rent Act of 1957 and, in particular, those who were taking advantage of their position arising out of Section 11 (1) and Section 11 (2) of that Act. The Minister made it perfectly clear that, despite the fact that landlords in that category were exercising their legal rights and rights given to them under the Rent Act, if they were in fact making exorbitant and grasping demands on their tenants he certainly would be prepared to intervene.
The quotation I have made from the speech of the Minister in this House was one which he thought fit to quote in a Ministry circular, Circular 45/60, issued in relation to this matter on 13th August, 1960. The Minister has claimed that his statement in that regard and the issuing of that circular has had a most salutary effect on the behaviour of the type of landlord to whom he was referring. It is quite clear that the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to intervene to prevent exorbitant, extravagant and grasping demands being made by landlords in the exercise of their rights under existing legislation. The particular powers he had in mind in that regard were powers given under


the Housing Act, 1957, in relation to the acquisition by compulsory purchase by local authorities of property of landlords behaving in that fashion.
It is true that the tenants in that category were faced not only with exorbitant financial demands but, if they could not meet those demands, with the prospect of being dispossessed. The persons we have in mind, the persons referred to in South Wales, by reason of the Act of 1954 are, in the main, protected in their security of tenure, on terms. If the demands made by the ground landlord either for an extension of the lease or for the purchase of the freehold are exorbitant, the hardship placed upon these people is certainly comparable with the hardship placed upon people to whose rescue the Minister was prepared to come when he issued the circular to which I have referred.
Can it be said that in relation to the ground landlord of the South Wales area, with wham we are mostly concerned today, as it has been said of landlords in the context to which I have referred, that
there are swindlers in the market"?
We have heard statements in one direction and statements in another direction. I do not think an issue of that kind can be properly determined by exchanges in this House. I should like the Minister to indicate quite clearly and categorically that if he has evidence, or if he is satisfied, that ground landlords are abusing their present powers and are making exorbitant demands in negotiations for the extension of a lease or the purchase of a freehold, he would be prepared to use powers similar to those he proposed to use in relation to the landlords in London.
The powers he had in mind in relation to landlords in London were those under the Housing Act, 1957. I concede readily that the powers under Sections 91 to 96 of that Act are probably not appropriate for use in this connection, but if they are not, then nothing would be easier than for the Minister to acquire powers for the purpose. I should like the Minister to say categorically to these ground landlords in South Wales that if they do not behave in a reasonable and fair manner towards their ground lessees he will invoke powers similar to those which

he has threatened to invoke in relation to landlords in London.
What the Minister had in mind—he will correct me if I am wrong—was that the powers under the Housing Act, 1957, should be exercised by the local authority and that when applications for compulsory purchase were submitted to him for approval in those circumstances, he would consider them sympathetically. Let the Minister indicate that he is prepared to take precisely the same attitude and to exercise precisely the same powers in relation to ground landlords who behave unfairly and unreasonably towards their tenants. If the local authorities in Wales felt that an injustice was being done in this direction they would not hesitate to act. If they did not act, at least the tenant would have one additional body about which to complain.
We have had evidence in the last two speeches of a large number of ground landlords who have behaved properly, but we have heard allegations that a number are not behaving properly. Just as the issue of Circular 45/60 had a salutary effect, so a categorical statement by the Minister on the lines which I have indicated might do a great deal to help in this direction. If it did not have a salutary effect, I should support the introduction of measures to enable the Minister to carry out the powers which I have indicated.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rees: I am glad to have the opportunity to join in the debate because I do not want it to be felt that the City of Cardiff is the only part of Wales which has this problem. I represent part of the County Borough of Swansea, and I have found that many of my constituents occupy their homes on leasehold tenure. They would be most upset if they thought that I had not managed to take part in the debate, as so often happens in the House.
I want to take part in the debate, too, because I shall deal with the problem from a rather wider experience as a practising chartered auctioneer in South Wales, for I come across both sides of the argument, acting on behalf of landlords and on behalf of tenants. First, I must confess that I have a personal interest in it, being a part beneficiary of some leasehold reversions on long terms, but it is interesting to note that the people


holding those leaseholds are not very anxious to purchase the freeholds, although they have been offered to them.
There is no doubt that this is a Welsh problem, as we have quite clearly heard today. I was disappointed to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in his reply, deal with it as a legal matter. I have read the Jenkins Committee's Report. Ten years ago there was a lot to commend all that it said and all the points which were raised. But the fundamental difference between Wales, or rather South Wales, and the rest of the country is that the purchaser has no option but to take a leasehold interest. Cardiff was originally developed by three families, the Plymouths, the Butes and the Tredegars. Swansea was developed by several others.
A point which some people forget, but which the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) pointed out, is that the system is developing further at the moment because the new towns have been developed on the same basis. The County Borough of Swansea is one of the biggest freeholders in the area. This system is spreading. Recently we heard that the Labour Party's policy solution of the problem of the high price of land was to extend the leasehold system.
If we are to tackle this problem, therefore, we should tackle it not only at the fag-end of the lease but also at the other end, the start of the lease. At the beginning of my remarks, which must be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak, I should like to deal with the beginning of the lease, because one of the objections which is put forward to leasehold reform is the sanctity of contract. If we dealt with the problem of the contract at the beginning, there would be no question of sanctity of contract. I should like to see a certain measure of reform whereby when a building and ground lease of less than 999 years is being entered into for the construction of a property on a plot of land, the ground landlord must build into the contract a right to purchase the freehold at some stage in the early part of the lease.
The ground landlord who is entering into that lease at that stage has a right of reversion in 100 years' time, and in view of the changes in planning and planning control, nobody will convince

me that his interest in redevelopment, which is the argument so often put forward for keeping a freehold estate in existence, is very serious. He is interested in his security and in his investment. He has achieved his planning aim. His positive planning aim at that stage has been achieved, because he has brought about development of the land. If the agitators of 100 years ago had thought about doing this, we should probably not be debating this problem today. This condition has been put into leases voluntarily. Many of my professional colleagues are advising their clients in South Wales to do it, and I know of four or five estates in my constituency being developed on this basis.
The trouble arises when we come to the fag-end of the lease. I have had clients in my office—and I am sure that other hon. Members have had this experience—to whom I have explained that they were buying a wasting asset with perhaps seventy years to go, and they have said, "It will see my life out, so why should I worry?" They do not begin to worry until the lease is down to forty, thirty or twenty years. That is when the trouble arises.
Another trouble which arises, and which has been running throughout the debate, is that of the misnomer "ground lease", because a layman cannot get it into his head—and I can understand this—that the building and the ground cannot be severed and that he is paying a rent for the building which is standing on the ground. He has paid a premium at the beginning of the lease for building that building. Nevertheless, it reverts to the landlord. If we could overcome that problem we might be able to see the position in better perspective.
When the lease has only thirty years or twenty-five years to go, or some such term, it becomes an unmortgageable asset. My right hon. and learned Friend rightly pointed to the benefit which will accrue from the 1954 Act of security of tenure, bat that is useless to the man who has to move away to other work, perhaps because there is no employment in the district or because he has promotion and has to sell his house and leave. If there are thirty years to go on the lease, it is a valuable asset, but his potential purchaser cannot obtain a


mortgage and cannot pay the full capital value. This is a man who needs a certain amount of help. I know that it will be said that he does not want to buy this interest until he is selling the house, and that may well be so, but if we genuinely wish to help people to move into jobs we must do something in the public interest to help them at that point with their houses.
Much has been said in one form or another about the oppressive and wicked prices which has been asked. Although I am very much in support of the Motion, I think that if some of the words which have beep spoken are read people will imagine that if this legislation is introduced they will get their freeholds for nothing. They will not. I should like to quote from the mathematical tables which have been referred to earlier. I should like to take a fair and straightforward basis, using a 5 per cent. table, and indicate the change in the capital value of the reversionary interest as the years disappear.
Let us assume that the house has a capital value of £2,000. If the freehold is bought with 25 years unexpired, the probable value would be about £590. I am not giving this as a professional valuation; it is an indication of a mathematical figure. If, however, one waits until only 18 years are left—in other words, seven years have passed—the figure is up to £839. At that stage, the asset is wasting rapidly.
Constituents have told me that they will not buy the ground rent because the price is iniquitous. As a valuer—putting on my other hat, not charging them a fee for it—I have worked out the figures, which have been very fair. When I explain to my constituents, they reply that their ancestors before them had paid the ground rent through the years and it has been paid for over and over again. That is the way they look at it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] It is not true. [Interruption.] Very well. If somebody puts £100 in the Post Office Savings Bank and leaves it there for 50 years, at the end of that time he has £125 in interest from the Post Office, but he still wants his £100 back. What one has paid in ground rent is an interest on the capital investment. What people must realise and must get clearly into their heads and not forget is that if they

get leasehold reform, of which I am in favour—I am very much behind it—they need not imagine that it will be at give-away prices.

Sir Lynn Ungoed Thomas: The point that the hon. Member makes about it being interest on capital is perfectly valid; but the interest is on the ground. The house has been built by the tenant or his predecessor in title. The crux of the problem is whether the landlord should have the benefit of the house which the tenant has built or whether the tenant should have the benefit of it. That is a problem which the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), in a speech which appeared to be extremely brave, did not face.

Mr. Rees: I take the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but politics are the achievement of the practical. Over the years, trusts funds, pension funds and all sorts of funds have been invested in long-term leaseholds with a freehold reversion. If, overnight, hon. Members opposite want to destroy that fundamental principle, on which people have bought and invested trust funds, they will not achieve their aim. We must accept the situation that that has been the basis of tenure all along.
I am sorry that I did not hear a more hopeful and encouraging reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I am in an embarrassing position tonight, to put it mildly. I cannot vote against the Motion. I shall have to abstain from voting unless I find more encouragement coming from the Government.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Box: On a point of order. Is there any possibility, Mr. Speaker, of extending the time of this debate? It is obvious that other Members, including myself, wish to speak. We have had an intervention from one English hon. Member for 35 minutes. I am faced with the situation that both of my Socialist colleagues from the Cardiff constituencies will have spoken in the debate, but, apparently, I shall not be able to do so.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, that is not within my control. It is not by the provision of any order


of the House that the debate stops at any fixed hour before 10 o'clock.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I help, Mr. Speaker? This is a Welsh day, at the disposal of the Opposition. We have arranged that there should be two debates. We want reasonable time for the following debate, but the subject of this first debate is a big and vital one. Speaking for myself and, I think, many hon. Members who would like to take part in the second debate, we would not keep rigidly to the time limit of 7 o'clock for the first debate to finish, but we would hope that reasonable time may be given to the second debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: It will take only a few minutes to say what I intended to say. Today, we have heard some fantastic arguments from the Attorney-General, which I will leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to answer. The right hon. Gentleman tried to justify the 1954 Act. The weaknesses of that Act are self-evident. The lessee has been given the right to remain, but only as a statutory tenant. His right is therefore severely qualified. If the landlord wishes to develop the property, as the Attorney-General conceded, the lessee has no security of tenure. Again, if the landlord wishes to obtain possession of the property on grounds provided by the Rent Act, he can get possession and, therefore, the security of tenure is fictitious.
Secondly, although the premises will never be his, the new tenant will still be responsible for the whole cost of dilapidations. Therefore, in addition to paying the increased rent that he will have to pay, he will also have to pay the value of the dilapidations on the property.
Thirdly, the rent which he has to pay is the market rent. Therefore, there is very little in the 1954 Act. It has given some security of tenure to the tenant, but close examination shows that it is a fictitious security of tenure.
In my constituency, the Church in Wales is the holder of ground reversions. In the past few months, the Church has taken advantage of a clause

in its leases to the great detriment of my constituents. I am sorry to have to say this about the Church in Wales, but in this respect it has behaved badly. There is a clause in the leases enabling the lessor to specify the company with whom the lessee must insure the property. This clause has been in abeyance for years, but in the last few months the Church in Wales has insisted upon using it. One of the reasons may well be that somebody is able to get commission in respect of the insurances.
This matter has caused great annoyance in my constituency. The people are annoyed, especially when they realise that the new insurances must be effected with an ecclesiastical insurance company. At this late juncture, I ask the Church in Wales to have regard to the feelings of my constituents. I am sorry to have to mention the name of the Church in Wales, but the Church, too, should behave as a reasonable landlord, and although a clause such as I have described is contained in the leases, there is no need to insist upon its application when it has not been insisted upon in the past for a great many years.
Innumerable cases have been quoted this afternoon, and I have had masses of cases myself. I have obtained some facts and figures regarding the Aberystwyth Corporation, which holds a number of ground reversions. I am told that the value of the leasehold ground in the borough is almost £½ million. The total income which the borough receives is £6,543 a year, or a return on the capital of 1·3 per cent. After deducting the cost of administration of ·7 per cent., there remains a return to the borough of ·6 per cent. I ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, when considering local government finances, to consider seriously whether it would not be better for this local authority—and other local authorities which hold reversions of this nature—to sell the £½ million worth which it now possesses instead of borrowing money at 6 per cent. interest for other purposes for which it needs money.
The finance corporations who own reversions are, in many instances, people who till not, who sow not, but who make sure that they reap every time when the leases fall in.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Donald Box: It is perfectly obvious that the time for this debate is inadequate and that the Motion is in effect a Motion of censure of the Government. As Motions of censure go, it is about the mildest form of censure which I have ever read. The only conclusion which I can draw from that is that the Front Bench opposite has not got its heart and soul in the matter, or has such a guilt complex at its own lack of activity that it is not wholly behind the Motion. I have examined the records of the Socialist Party and, although I obviously have to curtail much of what I have to say in this respect, I must say that even in its latest policy document, which was issued only a week or so ago, the Labour Party made practically no reference to this matter other than to say:
We must also reform leasehold law to enable leaseholders with long leases to buy their own homes.
There is no question about when, where, or on what terms.
It is true that, in a thinly disguised plan for land nationalisation, the Labour Party intends to acquire all freehold building land in the country, but it makes no reference to this leasehold problem. It is no wonder that one searches in vain for a solution to the problem. It is no wonder that The Times recently described this policy statement as a deceptively simple solution to an exceedingly complex problem.
On the other hand, I cannot claim that my own Front Bench has been conspicuous by its action over the last eleven years. Admittedly the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, gave some security of tenure to leaseholders to become statutory tenants, at the current market rents, on the expiration of their leases. I know that some people consider that that has largely taken the sting out of the leasehold system; but, although it appears to offer a crumb of comfort to leaseholders, it is really merely one more way of putting off the day when we tackle this thorny problem.
Because this is an issue which is at present confined to South Wales, some parts of London and a few towns in the north of England, we Members who represent constituencies in South Wales have great difficulty about convincing our colleagues not faced with the prob-

lem of the growing danger created by the present great expansion of the leasehold system. Their attitude, perhaps understandably, is rather like that of a person signing a 99-year lease who, on being told that at the end he will have to hand over his property so that the value accrues to the landlord, says, "That will not bother me". The end of these leases will not bother any hon. Members now present, but I make the confident forecast that it will become a very perplexing problem for future generations, unless we do something to tackle the situation now.
I am strongly opposed to the leasehold system in its present form, although I realise that there are certain fundamental objections to stopping it now. The chief is the dire shortage of land. In its present form, it is a deceptively cheap and convenient way of selling houses on the "never-never"—never paid for, never owned—yet guaranteed to create friction between landlords and the leaseholder in the end.
The whole system requires a thorough review and a determined effort to adjust the position by new legislation. Neither the Government nor the Opposition have much on which to congratulate themselves in this respect. There is far too much evidence of prevarication, putting off the evil day, and leaving matters for someone else to clear up in the future. I hope that even at this late stage my right hon. Friend will initiate an up-to-date review of the whole leasehold system. If he did so, he would not only give great service to Wales, but would earn for himself the eternal gratitude of the Welsh people.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I will scrap the speech I intended to make, as we have to vote at ten o'clock.—[Interruption.]—I mean seven o'clock. I wish that it were at ten o'clock and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and other Members do, because they would then have been able to speak.
Let me get the record straight for the benefit of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box). Since 1951, the Labour Party has been committed to leasehold enfranchisement in every policy document and in every statement and election manifesto. It has been made clear, and I reaffirm it now, that in the event of the


present Government not legislating, a Labour Government, if returned at the next election, will certainly legislate in order to provide leasehold enfranchisement.
The hon. Member complained that "Signpost for the Sixties" did not lay down a detailed plan. I have never yet known a signpost which conveyed a detailed sketch of the whole of the surrounding countryside. It is a declaration of intention and the hon. Member should not seek to escape from the embarrassment of his own Government by trying to foist on us responsibility for the last ten years, which have been entirely in the control of his own party.
I do not wish to spend a lot of time on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), because the House showed its distaste for his speech, a distaste emphasised by the fact that we see the hon. and learned Member here only when this subject is discussed. I do not know what his electors think about him, and perhaps they just do not know. I have looked up his record of appearances in the House and of his speeches. I do not know where he goes, but, according to the record, he has asked one Written Question this year, while last year there were no entries in the Index of HANSARD and the year before he made one constituency speech on the Adjournment. He must not take it amiss if when he arrives, those of my hon. Friends who do not know him wonder who he is and are disgusted with his contribution.
It is true that there are good ground landlords, but I want to make a distinction. I say to the two directors sitting opposite that a great deal of criticism lies against their company and they should know it. I have had much experience—all my hon. Friends share it—of dealing with ground landlords who have offered to sell their freeholds on reasonable terms, but when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) says that it is his company's policy to sell its freeholds, I can only say that he is given the lie by every reputable solicitor in Cardiff.

Mr. Aitken: Mr. Aitken indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head, because I am stating the views of solicitors who are

handling these matters every day. I have one letter from a well-known solicitor, whose name I do not propose to advertise, who says:
I have found most estates are prepared, upon request, to sell the freehold, except Western Ground Rents Limited, who either refuse to sell, or ask for a large sum of money.

Mr. Aitken: I call the attention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to the official statement by the chairman of the company, in which he said that for a number of years the company had been perfectly willing to sell a freehold or renew a lease, except in cases where it was obviously in the interests of good estate management that it should not do so.

Mr. Callaghan: And the complaint made is that the company fixes ridiculously high prices so that it is not making a genuine offer. That is our experience. Of course the hon. Member says that the figure is based on the valuation tables and the reversionary rights, but who fixes the value of the property from which a discount is made? It is Western Ground Rents Limited. It fixes the capital value of the property. The complaints now being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and others about the property in Cathedral Road is that it is now going at an extortionate price by comparison with what it was ten years ago. It is that company which is saying what this property is worth and then making a discount from its valuation tables, so that it is able to say that it is working it all out mathematically.
I put this to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. Of course, the value of property in Cathedral Road has been going up. It is near the centre of a city which is developing fast. But has Western Ground Rents developed it? What has that company put into Cardiff? And, apart from asking what contribution Western Ground Rents has made to Cardiff, have those hon. Members ever been there? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would not even know his way around Grangetown or Roath. I am talking about absentee landlords of the worst order. They are a group of financiers, hired lawyers and actuaries who know nothing about the city but who control our lifeblood and destinies.
This subject causes great emotion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand the bitterness and hatred that is felt for Western Ground Rents in Cardiff. My hon. Friends have said that this is a much wider problem and, of course, it is and I am sorry that, because of the time factor, more of my hon. Friends have not been able to take part in the debate.
Western Ground Rents Ltd. has done much to damnify the leasehold system, which the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) defended. It did it because of the financial return it is getting, and for no other reason. In this connection, I will read what the firm's distribution of dividends has been over the last few years—all made out of people's homes. In 1951–52 it paid a dividend of 50 per cent. In 1952–53 it paid a dividend again of 50 per cent. For 1953–54, 1954–55 and 1955–56 there was a dividend of only a beggarly 25 per cent. In 1956–57 it made a capital distribution of two shares for every one share held by its shareholders. The company therefore paid a dividend whose equivalent is 60 per cent. In 1957 it paid a dividend whose equivalent is 75 per cent. and in 1958 it paid a dividend whose equivalent is 75 per cent.
In three years a shareholder could get his capital back more than twice, yet those hon. Members opposite have the impudence to come to this House and claim that they have a right to the capital value of Cardiff, to which they have not contributed a single penny since they first laid down the land.

Mr. Aitken: Mr. Aitken rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way.

Mr. Aitken: What the hon. Gentleman says is untrue.

Mr. Callaghan: It is not.

Mr. Aitken: Give way.

Mr. Callaghan: No. The figures I have given are from the Stock Exchange records and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak he can make his own speech. In fact, I make this offer to the hon. Gentleman. He can come to Cardiff and have a public meeting and debate the issue there. We will fill the Tory hall five times over with his tenants.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not afraid to give way to the hon. Gentleman or to anyone else. I have not been an undiluted admirer of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) but this afternoon he has spoken like a real man. I agree with every word of his speech and I congratulate him on it, as I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on his contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) on his moving speech.

Mr. Aitken: Give way. The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not true. I have been in this House far sixteen years and hon. Members can judge whether or not I am afraid to give way.

Mr. J. Foster: Mr. J. Foster rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Box: Mr. Box rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), because the hon. Gentleman was given time to speak and he used it merely to make an attack on the Labour Party.
This is an issue which has aroused intense emotion. I warn the Government that if they do not accept this Motion—and already some hon. Members opposite intend to vote against the Government—and unless they are prepared to act, this agitation will continue. It is bound to go on until there is a solution to the problem. The Land Development Commission, which the Labour Party proposes should be established, will be one means—and I do not have time to develop this in detail—of ending this monopoly.
When that Commission has acquired land, and the houses are built upon it, it will be possible and a proper matter of policy to sell the freehold of those houses back to those who are occupying that land. That is the only way, in many parts of Wales, that one will be able to get land at a reasonable price. I warn the Minister that resentment in South Wales is growing. It is founded on emotion that cannot be swept aside.
I will close my remarks with a little ditty that was heard at the weekend when the Home Secretary made a speech in order to try to overcome what the Prime Minister told us about our never having had it so good. I have taken the liberty of adding to it and, no doubt, my hon. Friends could add to it further. This is what the Home Secretary told us:
Nations earn their right to rise
Through service and through sacrifice.
I have taken the liberty of adding the following:
But Western Ground Rents say, 'This is rot,
You build the house, we take the lot;
Yours is the right, whilst our profits rise
To serve us and to sacrifice'.

6.47 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I appreciate that this debate is confined to half a day and that other hon. Members still wish to speak, but I know that it is the desire of the Opposition to raise another subject following this debate.
This has been an interesting debate and the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) were two of the most thoughtful contributions that I have heard in a number of debates to which I have listened or in which I have taken part on the subject of leasehold over a number of years past.
It is a subject with which I am not unfamiliar from my constituency point of view. I think the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams) said that leasehold would be a much more famous topic if it were more widely spread. It happens that my constituency of Hampstead is largely subject to ground leases. I have represented that constituency for eleven years, and it is a subject on which hardly any of my constituents write to me. What the cause of that is I can only guess. I think it is partly because the ground landlords are very wise in handling their lessees and have pursued an enlightened policy. I think it is also because remarkably few people in Hampstead are so gullible or stupid as to imagine that they have acquired the freehold interest when they have actually acquired the leasehold.

Mrs. Eirene White: Does not the Minister realise that in Hampstead there is also a considerable number of freeholds? As a freeholder myself in Hampstead I know that in Hampstead one has a choice that one does not have in South Wales.

Mr. Brooke: There are all these considerations, but the fact is—and I did not think that there was any dispute about this—that the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954 seems to be acting without giving any serious or widespread dissatisfaction, other than in South Wales.
Therefore, one of the matters for hon. Members to examine—or for examination by anyone interested in this subject—is what, if any, are the bad features in South Wales which give rise to dissatisfaction. The hon. Member for Abertillery was frank in his speech. He said, in effect, that if one had a leasehold interest one could fairly imagine that it was a freehold interest and complained that one's home was being snatched if one was not able to retain that interest beyond the expiry of the lease. That is perfectly frank, but it makes nonsense of all contracts.
I am aware that over the years a number of people in various places have had that totally mistaken idea. No one in this House holds it, I am sure. All hon. Members realise the difference. The argument here is whether the leasehold system should continue. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, West who made interesting suggestions about possible changes in the law, as I understood his speech, so as to insist on certain provisions being included in future long leases that are granted.
The question, in fact, is whether there is now to be some form of leasehold enfranchisement or some other kind of interference by compulsion imposed by Parliament on contracts that have been entered into and have been running for a number of years. That is a subject which the Jenkins Committee examined a number of years ago and by a large majority that Committee—which was a very strong one—came to the conclusion that it would not be justifiable to grant powers of compulsory purchase to a private citizen.
As I understand it, what this Motion implies is that the Government should


introduce forthwith legislation which will put powers of compulsory purchase into the hands of certain citizens, to wit occupying lessees. The Motion confines it to occupying lessees although, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out, at once one would risk doing injustice if one were to follow this advice as between the occupying lessee and the non-occupying lessee. A situation might be created in which Mr. Jones, living in one house, and who is the occupier, is entitled to exercise compulsory purchase rights against the ground landlord and obtain it at a figure which I suspect the Opposition wants to be rather below the market value; whereas Mr. Williams, who is the lessee of the house next door, because he is not living there, would have no such right. If Mr. Jones can then sell his property, having compulsorily acquired it, at a profit to somebody else, while Mr. Williams cannot do so, obviously there is going to be a renewed feeling of injustice.
All I am putting to the Opposition is that this proposal of theirs, if it were adopted, would not eliminate feelings of injustice as between one person and another.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It has been done in Scotland.

Mr. Brooke: I am speaking of Wales because the Motion concerns Wales.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the Minister realise that the action which his own Government have taken with regard to leaseholds in Scotland makes nonsense of his objection to the Motion which is before the House?

Mr. Brooke: I am addressing myself to the terms of the Motion which proposes to give certain powers of compulsory purchase to occupying lessees in Wales. I am pointing out what would be the consequences of that.
The Motion further refers to the hardships caused in Wales by the operation of the current leasehold system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General asked to be given specific instances of that. He said that he had been making inquiries but had not come across

or gained information of cases where the ground landlords had been appearing to demand for the freehold reversion a figure that was, in fact, higher than its market value.
Equally, I have been seeking to gain information and I have not got from the papers, from inquiries that I have made or from this debate any clear examples of hardship caused. Let me quote one or two that were mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke of somebody being offered a house in Newport with thirty-one years unexpired for £500. I cannot tell whether it is worth £500 or not, but I know that almost anybody in my constituency would snap up a house with thirty-one years unexpired for £500. Obviously, of course, it depends on the condition of the house.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) alleged that there was severe hardship in the case of an ex-policeman who had been paying 1s. a week in respect of his house and was now, on the expiry of the lease or towards the end of it, told that in future he would have to pay 11s. 7d. a week. In most parts of England and Wales 11s. 7d. a week does not sound an extortionate rent. The responsibility is on the hon. Member to try to convince the House that 11s. 7d. is a rent that is likely to cause hardship to the person who has been living in the house. If, indeed, it is a ground rent it is not clear why the 1s. a week is not continuing and why this person, if he feels that a hardship is being imposed upon him, is not seeking the protection of the 1954 Act.
The hon. Member for Abertillery spoke of a widow who was occupying a house with eleven years unexpired and who was being asked £185 for the house. Again it was not clear where the hardship is. If the lease is eleven years unexpired she is entitled to live in that house for a further eleven years, and at the end of that period she can claim to continue to live there because the 1954 Act guarantees her security of tenure at a rent which, if it cannot be agreed with the landlord, will be fixed by the court. Where is the hardship there?

Mr. LI. Williams: The Minister has misstated the position. The £185 was not for the house; it was for the ground rent.

Mr. Brooke: If she had eleven years unexpired she would be able to continue living there for another eleven years, and at the end of the eleven years she could claim the protection of the 1954 Act.
The truth is that for a great many people the whole topic of leasehold tenure is a mystery, and I am bound to say that that is in part due to a number of ground landlords being quite content that it shall remain a mystery. One of the facts that have been brought home to me is that in Wales, as elsewhere, these troubles seem to arise on certain estates and not on others. I can only think that the explanation of that is that certain ground landlords are far more successful, by publicity or public relations or otherwise, in letting everybody know what their policy is. I would certainly commend to all ground landlords in Wales and elsewhere, because this subject is one of common public interest, that they should not make it so difficult as some do at present for people to discover what, in fact, their policy is as regards their willingness either to extend the lease or to dispose of the freehold reversion, and on what terms.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) asked me whether I would consider taking similar action with regard to ground landlords as I took last August in relation to certain landlords in London. But, of course, the cases are not on a par. I was taking action against people who I feared were going to render their tenants homeless, but the occupying lessee cannot be rendered homeless. He is protected by the 1954 Act. The action which I took in that case would not be applicable or of value in the case which we are discussing today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry mentioned the difficulty of obtaining a mortgage for less than thirty-five years. That is a subject on which I would be very glad indeed to obtain further information. Clearly there is something unsatisfactory if a man needs to move away and yet cannot dispose of the remainder of his lease because nobody will give the incoming purchaser a mortgage since the lease is for less then thirty-five years. My impression is that

in 99 cases out of 100 if an approach is made to the ground landlord the matter can be settled. But if there are cases where a ground landlord is not prepared to help in any way and nobody else is, I shall be glad to hear of them.
There is another type of case which has not been mentioned today and which is of concern to me as Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is that where there are less than fifteen years unexpired it is difficult to apply for and obtain an improvement grant for a house. That, obviously, is of interest to me. I do not know. Again, cases of that kind have not come to my notice, but they may exist. If they do, I should like to hear about them.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made perfectly clear that the Labour Party's policy, if it came to power, would be to throw over the majority Report of the Jenkins Committee in regard to leasehold enfranchisement policy. Hon. and right hon. Members will find the argument in the majority Report more cogent and persuasive than, perhaps, they imagine. Is it true, as some hon. Members have argued, that the situation has altered since the Jenkins Report was presented? Again, if there is information of a specific kind which hon. Members wish to produce or can obtain from their constituencies, the Government are prepared to look at it. But the Government are not prepared to accept this Motion or to promise to set up another committee on such vague evidence as has so far been brought forward.
So far as we can ascertain, there is no specific evidence of hardship that would justify a fresh committee. The Government are very willing, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, to examine any information on these matters which is put into our hands, but, in our view, the Motion is not sufficiently supported by hard facts. I have explained that were it to become Government policy the proposal in the Motion would cause injustice between man and man and would give compulsory powers to private individuals, which is something which this House should be very reluctant to do. On all those grounds, I invite the House to reject the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 245.

Division No. 249.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hilton, A. V.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur


Blyton, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr, Harry


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Box, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
King, Dr. Horace
Steele, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swain, Thomas


Deer, George
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sylvester, George


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, Desmond
Loughlin, Charles
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McCann, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
MacColl, James
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Manuel, A. C.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Wigg, George


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Mort, D. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gower, Raymond
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gunter, Ray
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oram, A. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Halt, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Padley, W. E.



Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Paton, John
Mr. Redhead and


Healey, Denis
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Ifor Davies.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bullard, Denys


Aitken, W. T.
Bidgood, John C.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Allason, James
Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Black, Sir Cyril
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barber, Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cary, Sir Robert


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Christopher


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Paul
Cleaver, Leonard


Berkeley, Humphry
Buck, Antony
Cole, Norman




Cooper, A. E.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitman, Sir James


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, Peroivall


Costain, A. P.
Jackson, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Coulson, J. M.
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. O.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dance, James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, John
Kitson, Tlmothy
Robson Brown, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leather, E. H. C.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Errington, Sir Eric
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leburn, Gilmour
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, M.


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Lilley, F. J. P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Peter


Foster, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Litchfield, Capt. John



Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Speir, Rupert


Freeth, Denzil
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gammans, Lady
Longbottom, Charles
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Summers, sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Gough, Frederick
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Botton, E.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N, Ayrs.)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Green, Alan
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Teeling, William


Grimston, Sir Robert
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, Colin


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marshall, Douglas
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hay, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Gerald
Walker, Peter


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Wall, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Whitelaw, William


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Michael
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hobson, John
Page. Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John


Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peel, John



Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, John
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn

ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, WALES (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1960 (Command Paper No. 1293).—[Mr. Brooke.]

7.12 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to begin by making a suggestion to the Minister for Welsh Affairs which would help hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and would provide in the next Session of Parliament further opportunities for us to discuss the matter which obviously aroused intense interest earlier in our proceedings today. I suggest that in the Annual Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1961 there should be included one short paragraph referring to leasehold reform. That would bring the matter within the purview of the Welsh Grand Committee and we should ask for two extra days to discuss it in the Welsh Grand Committee.
We thought that we had a duty to take at least part of the one day that we get on the Floor of the House to discuss Welsh matters to deal with the nagging problem, which still continues, of the intense difficulties being experienced by elderly and disabled workmen in Wales in securing employment. We know that the other problem is of very great importance, but this one has great human interest, and we therefore feel justified in directing the attention of the House to some of their problems. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour present, and we are gratified to know that he is to reply to the points that we raise.
The problem of disabled and elderly workers cannot be considered except in the context of the general employment situation. While we welcome the improvement which has taken place, there are still difficulties. I wish to raise a few points about the general employment situation and the figures of unemployment in Wales in the hope that the Minister will be able to comment on them.
At 20th June, 1961, the number of unemployed in Wales was 20,024. That

represented 2·1 per cent, of the number of registered workers at the unemployment exchanges in the Principality. This is twice the national average. Wales is one of the ten areas for which figures are provided on a regional basis. The figure of unemployment in Wales is the second highest of the ten. The only other area with a higher figure of unemployment than Wales is Scotland. I speak for the whole of Wales when I say that we shall not be content until our figure of unemployment is at least as low as the national average.
I have looked up the figures of registered unemployed during the month of June in each of the last four years. It would appear that we have become stuck. The figures are as follows: 1958, 20,156; 1959, 19,446; 1960, 21,653; and 1961, 20,024. I should like to ask the Minister what are the prospects in the coming year of being able to reduce this figure of about 20,000. Or is the Minister complacent and satisfied that, so long as the figure remains at 20,000, although it represents 2·1 per cent. of registered workers and twice the national unemployment average, it is a satisfactory figure for Wales?
I wish to say something based on a very interesting table which is to be found on page 23 of the June issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. I ask the Minister to make this a regular feature, because it deals with something which deserves consideration. The figures of unemployment, particularly concerning the older industrial areas—Wales is one of them—are no longer a true reflection of the problem of unemployment in the Principality, or indeed in Scotland or in any of the older industrial areas. The table shows the shift of working population which is taking place and of which full account must be taken when we discuss these problems. It is a revealing table, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will look at it.
The table gives figures to describe what it calls the movement of population from one region to another—the inter-regional immigration of labour. It is extraordinarily interesting. The areas are grouped together and cover the great conurbations of London, Southern, South-Eastern and Eastern England. These are the areas to which industries and populations are


moving. In the year ending May, 1960, there was a not gain in registered workers in those regions of 36,000. In the other great conurbation to which there is a movement, particularly from Wales, Birmingham and the Midlands, there was a net gain of 7,000.
Then we come to the other areas. In Scotland there was a net loss of 16,000 registered workers in one year. For a country like Scotland that is a very big loss. In the North and North-West, the old industrial areas of Lancashire, Northumberland and Cumberland, there was a net loss of 13,000. In Wales there was a net loss of 4,000. The figure of 20,000 unemployed in Wales does not reveal the true situation. It is 20,000 plus the net loss of 4,000. This is going on every year. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government do not think that the distribution of industries is by any means solved.
We are confronted with a great technological revolution. We welcome the promise of the new industrial revolution. None of us who travels these days, as so many of us do—and as I shall be doing again tomorrow, from the Severn to the Tawe, along the main line—and sees these giant plants going up can but feel a thrill of promise, particularly when we remember the bad old days.
There are, however, two facts about these developments to which I want to call attention. First, what disturbs me in this development and in what I see happening in Wales is that it is all going to the coast. I have said this before and I make no apology for repeating it in the presence of the Minister for Welsh Affairs. If in twenty years' time the bulk of the population of Wales lives on the coast, with every respect to Cardiff and even more to Llanelly, and if as a consequence the valleys become dormitories, something very precious will have been lost to us.
The other aspect which is relevant to the problem of the elderly and the disabled is that we are dealing with the problem of those who, in the main, remain in the valleys. The new works are far away. For the young and for the able-bodied, it is easy to travel ten or twenty miles in the morning and back in the evening, but for the elderly and the disabled, this adds to their difficulties and to their problem. Whereas, therefore,

these new develepments bring promise to the young, they add to the grievance of the old and the disabled. They see all this new promise coming, but it is not for them.
I will be as short as I can because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak and have important contributions to make. I come now to the problem of the elderly in Wales. I am sorry to bother the House again with statistics, but they are essential to an understanding of the problem. Table 27 on page 26 of the Digest of Welsh Statistics gives for December, 1951, an age distribution related to duration of unemployment of registered workers in Wales and Monmouthshire. I will give a fair summary which illustrates the problem of the difficulty of the elderly to get work.
Of those under 20 years of age who were unemployed in December, 1951, 1 in 20 had been unemployed for more than a year. Of those in the 20 to 40 age range, 1 in 6 had been unemployed for over a year. Between the ages of 40 and 55, 1 in 3 had been unemployed for over a year, whilst for those over the age of 55 the proportion was one-half. This clearly reveals how very difficult it is for the elderly people to secure work.
Let me make a few suggestions. I will take examples from merely one industry, steel and tinplate. During the last few years there has been a tremendous revolution in Wales. At one time there were 400 mills employing 24,000 workmen. Now we have Margam and Trostre, and shortly we shall have Llanwern. I have already spoken about the promise of these developments, but let us look at the other side of the picture.
There are the victims of technological change. There are the men who have learnt their craft, and a very skilled craft it was. In the old tinplate industry, there were the rollermen, the furnacemen, the shearers and the rest. They are fine men. It is not my industry, but I have lived with these men. Members of my family have worked in the industry. It was the only other industry apart from the pits.
Suddenly, by technological development, not only do those men lose their jobs, but their craft becomes meaningless and at the age of 45 or 50 they are out


of work. The nation needs them. They are the salt of the earth. They are the owner-occupiers of whom we have been speaking earlier this evening. They are fine citizens. Therefore, I ask the Minister during the next twelve months of his administration, if he is still in office and has not been swallowed by the Common Market or something like that, to make a special study of this problem, which is of tremendous importance. We ought to concentrate upon it.
I am sure that the Minister and the House will agree with me that to say to a man at the age of 45 that because of these technological changes, the shift of industry or something like that, there is nothing for him except for the rest of his life to stay there idle, unwanted and forgotten until he reaches the age of 65 and goes on pension, represents a terrifying waste of time and human material. The nation badly needs these people. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and his staff will concentrate upon the problem of helping them.
I venture to make an appeal to the old firms, who owe a great deal to Wales, who are building new plants. I hope that the owners of all the new plants which we see being erected by the old firms in the steel industry and the rest will accept fully their obligation to the men who have been put out of work by technological change. They owe a great deal to these men. It was they who built up the industry. I shall not mention the names of companies; we all know them. These are the men who made them. I hope that none of the new works will set age limits which bar these men. I do not say that they do, but sometimes the men think that that is what happens—in other words, that it is quite all right for them to be employed in the old works at the age of 50, but not in the new places. Anybody who adopts that attitude is making a profound mistake.
These are splendid men, of fine character, great skill and adaptability. If the new industry coming to Wales employed them, it would soon know that it had some of the best workmen. If the firms find work for these men in the works which they are establishing, they will add balance, strength and poise to their labour force. They need not

imagine that they are doing a work of charity. They will be doing something which is in the best interest of themselves.

Mr. Abse: May I express the hope, which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend shares, that they follow the example of the publicly-owned steel industry—for example, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, which, in my constituency, is showing great initiative in seeing that all men employed in the old works and whose livelihood may be endangered by the coming of the new steel works at Llanwern are given adequate jobs or redundancy payments?

Mr. Griffiths: I welcome that. I hope they will all follow that example. My concern is that these people shall be found jobs.
I turn now to the disabled and I wish to quote some figures from the Ministry of Labour Gazette and from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. As as old worker in industry and a trade union official, I have known of this position for a long time. I have known it also as a former Minister of National Insurance, but I wonder whether the House realises it.
I have given figures about the shifting population and about the contracting areas and the developing areas in Wales. Our young people—and good luck to them—are being attracted and enticed to all the areas which have prospects, and they are leaving Wales and its problems behind them. In giving these figures, which speak for themselves, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the contrast in population between Wales, with her 21- million people, and the great conurbations of London, with its countless millions, and the Midlands, with its several millions. The table from which I shall quote shows the number of workers absent from work because of industrial injury for the week of 16th May, 1961, although the figures for any week will be more or less the same.
In London and the South-East, the number of workers absent from work for that reason was 3,500; in the Eastern region, 3,000; and in the Southern region, 1,500. In that one week in those three regions, to which most of the new industries are going, 8,000 workers were absent from work because of industrial injury. That was out of a population


which I do not think I would be far wrong in putting at 20 million. To be on the safe side, however, let us call it 15 million. So in a population of 15 million there are 8,000 absent from work through industrial injuries. In Wales with a population of 2½ million there are absent from work through industrial injuries, 7,600.
There is the problem, the problem of the disabled in the land of slate quarries, coal mine, steel works and heavy industry. I am indeed very proud, if I may say so, of the fact that so much has been done under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which I had the honour of piloting through the House when I was a Minister, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing its operation in this House before long, for we have not had one for a long time; but there is still a great deal which can be clone to improve immensely the provisions under that Act. I was shocked the other day to learn that the service was so well off that we gave the employers 1d. off a week. I wish I were the Minister of that 1d. I should know what to do about it.
I am concerned about the disabled getting work. From my experience I can say that one of the essential things for the recovery as far as possible after injury of physical health, of self-respect, which is so important because of the influence which the mind has on the body's fitness, is for a disabled man to get a job as quickly as possible. A man's work forms a man's life, and if he is disabled from doing his work he feels, "I am finished because of this accident," and so it is intensely important that he should be got work as quickly as possible. I beg the Minister to give attention to that.
I understand that there are just over 42,000 — 42,979 — registered disabled workers in Wales of whom 5,034 are unemployed. We must find work for these men. It is extraordinarily important in these days, with the developing Health Service. There is a lot of work for them, a lot of work which they could do. These are men who could be found work and for whom work must be found quickly. I beg the Minister to take every possible step to find employment for them. Of course, there are the severely disabled for whom, I think, unfortunately, it may be impossible for us to

say that they will ever fit into the industrial pattern again and get jobs. We find that in December, 1960, in Wales there were 619 severely disabled persons out of work.
There is a matter for which the Minister is responsible and about which I ask him. When is he going to begin building more Remploy factories? I put this to him. There are 619 disabled people in Wales out of work. Of course, there are many others in the country as a whole, but I am speaking of Wales. One of the most imaginative pieces of real, constructive, social work we have done in this country was the establishment of Remploy factories to give severely disabled men work. Surely in this age, with all the resources which are available to us, we ought to be able to provide them with employment. Some time ago now some of my colleagues from Wales and I saw one of the Minister of Labour's predecessors, who told us that when the Government did reverse their policy and the Treasury agreed and there was money again to provide for the establishment of Remploy factories the first in the new programme would be built in Wales.
That was a promise. We look forward to its fulfilment. That is in the future, when the policy is changed. The policy is not changed at the moment. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to give us an undertaking that he will go into this matter at once and fight to get more Remploys, and that the Government will carry out the undertaking that the first factory in the new phase would be built in Wales so as to give some hope to these men.
I must say a word or two about one other thing. I am going to say a word or two about pneumoconiosis, because we cannot think about or discuss the disabled without thinking of pneumoconiosis. I will say one or two words of encouragement. I have been associated with this problem from the beginning. I remember the first time when in the mining industry we got pneumoconiosis as a scheduled disease. I rejoiced greatly, and I rejoice greatly at the progress which has been made and at the work which the doctors have done. The names of Dr. Fletcher and others who have worked in Llandough Hospital deserve a niche in the history of Wales.


They have done a good job for Wales, and I pay my full tribute to it, and also to the work done together by the Coal Board and the N.U.M.
For years there was argument about what caused pneumoconiosis, and in the end we came to the sensible conclusion that it was dust and that we must do everything we could to stop dust from doing this damage. There has been progress, but in the last ten years on the average each year 900 men have been certified as disabled to some extent and to varying degrees by pneumoconiosis in Wales.
Today we are more civilised about it than we were in the old 'thirties. In the old 'thirties we did not certify a man until he was half dead. Now we find it easier; we assess percentage of disablement, 5 per cent., 10 per cent.; and we keep men under survey and make perfectly sure that before they reach the crippling stage of disablement they are taken out of the pit. Many are still able to continue work in the coal mines in improved conditions free from dust, and for many years, and it is all to the good that they are able to continue and that for so long as they are kept under survey they can do a useful job of work at their own job and with their own mates, and so on.
Things are much better now, and I rejoice at that, as one who has lived with this problem. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to hear that step by step—sometimes too slow for me—we are getting on top of the problem, but if it is essential, as it is, for a disabled man to be provided with employment, believe me it is essential for a man who has got pneumoconiosis. I do not know what the figures are. Frankly, I have not got them. How many of the 900 disabled each year are still able to continue to work?
They come out from work, but they must be found work again. I use the word "must". It is an obligation we awe to them. Not only do we owe it to the men, but it is very important for the coal mining industry and very important for the nation. With over half a century of association with the coal mining industry I see for the first time in my life more men are leaving the pits than are going in. I leave hon. Members to pon-

der that. It is very serious. In spite of all our dreams of atomic energy and all the rest of it, for generations to come coal will be the lifeblood of this nation.
I tell the House what would be the best recruiting sergeant for the mines. I am sure that in my valley and in every other valley represented in this House now the best recruiting agent to induce young people to go into the mines would be, the seeing of every disabled man cared for and his family cared for, the seeing him retrained and seeing him in a job. The worst would be seeing him on the dole. Every man on the dole is a frightful deterrent to recruitment. In the interest of the nation it is imperative for the future of the coalmining industry, and that means the future of this country, that steps should be taken to establish Remploy factories and to encourage employers to employ more than the present 3½ per cent. of disabled. I am sure that they can employ more than that percentage especially in the new industries.
This is a nagging problem, and it is a very serious human problem. We welcome the improvement that has been made in this respect in Wales, but we shall not be satisfied until the progress made is as good as that made over the country as a whole. We have taken advantage of this half day of debate to present to the House and to the Government one of the problems that face us in Wales and to ask far action to deal with this the most human of the problems that confront the Principality.

7.41 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has quoted some very disturbing figures relating to disabled and elderly workers in the Principality. The figure which he gave of over 10,000 disabled out of a population of 2½ million compared with 8,000 in southern England was the one that caused us the greatest concern of all. There is a very high percentage of disabled workers in the anthracite areas of South-West Wales and I should like to put one or two points to the Minister of Labour, who I understand will wind up the debate, about the particular difficulties in securing employment as a result of the closure of old pits and the difficulties of transferring redundant


miners to the new pits at Cynheidre and Abernant.
In the revolution of improved techniques in which machinery is taking over the work of man it will be extremely difficult to absorb a great proportion of disabled and elderly workers. This will mean that there will be far fewer suitable light jobs for these workers and this in spite of the fact of the policy being pursued of securing that every able-bodied worker should go to work underground in order to create the maximum opportunities of employment for their less fortunate fellow-miners.
So far, it can be said that it has been possible to accommodate a good proportion of these workers, but with the next batch of transfers we shall be faced with a hard-core problem. There will be a difficult and delicate operation of transfer and adjustments and, it may be, even of recruitment as the Minister of Labour well knows, and it is very easy to disturb the rhythm of the operation.
In this connection I should like to refer to the extraordinary outburst of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) a day or two ago about the future of Cynheidre and Abernant which might create a crisis of confidence of some gravity. He questioned whether those pits were likely to reach a fraction of the target which had been suggested. This is a serious matter not only when we consider the question of obtaining the necessary labour for Cynheidre but also the employment of the older workers. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not now in his place. I gave him warning that I had one or two observations of a critical character to make about him. I do not know by what stretch of imagination the hon. Member could conceivably think that he was rendering a service by his rash and ill-advised intervention at this moment of all times.
Mr. Kellett, the divisional chairman for the South-Western Region of the Coal Board, said that anything that casts doubt on the projects makes the recruitment of workers more difficult. The hon. Member's defence was that he said what he did solely and simply as the guardian of the public purse. He said that when expenditure of millions of pounds is involved it is the duty of hon. Members to investigate when it appears that public

money is being wasted. That is an admirable principle to which we all subscribe both with regard to public and private industry. But I was a little surprised, however, to recall that when voices were raised on this side and even on the opposite side of the House against large subventions to private industry for projects which at any rate were questionable, we did not even have a well-modulated squeak from the guardian of the public purse, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North.
It is important, because this might create a crisis of confidence, to ascertain what people who really know the facts of the development of Cynheidre have had to say about it. Mr. Kellett doubted very much whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, North had enough knowledge of the industry to draw the right conclusions from the letter which he had received from the Chairman of the Coal Board, the noble Lord, Lord Robens, about the probable target at Cynheidre. Mr. Kellett said that he would draw entirely different conclusions from the information. He said:
The first stage of development is a great technical achievement. Cyndheidre is a continuous process and is built for fifty years and not for a day. It has only just begun production and it could not be expected to reach its full production for at least two years.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, who made this extraordinary pronouncement entirely off his own bat, did not consult Mr. Kellett or even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, who is a mining engineer. He visited Cynheidre a few weeks ago and spent five hours there, and he said:
The time is coming to show that the vast investment in these new projects"—
that is Cynheidre and Abernant—
is justified and I am satisfied that everything points to a gradually rising output.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will have the grace and wisdom to retract these wild statements which he has made without any justification.
As we all acknowledge, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has said, Remploy factories have made a considerable contribution towards the solution of the difficult problem of the employment of the disabled in Wales. There is a Remploy factory in my constituency, at


Aberaman. It is almost fully manned and at the moment it employs fifty-five. There will be some vacancies there in two or three months.
I should like to raise two particular complaints that have been made to me about Remploy factories. One is that the type of work at the factories is very restricted in scope. As far as I can judge, and I have looked through the list of the products which they produce, these factories are mainly employed on furniture of various kinds and domestic equipment. I think that it would be an extremely good thing if the range of the products could be extended.
The second complaint is about the low rates of wages, and I should like to remind the House of one or two interesting figures which bear upon the matter. First, the value of output per man in 1951 was £56. It had risen in 1959–60 to £409. That is quite a remarkable increase. The second figure I should like to quote is that of the sales as a percentage of wages for the disabled and the cost of raw materials. In 1951–52 it was 55·4 per cent. It has risen in 1959–60 to 102·5 per cent.; in fact, it has very nearly doubled, which I think is a remarkable achievement. Now I come to wages. In 1951–52 average wages were £5 4s. 6d. In 1959–60 they had risen only to £7 10s. 4d. I do not think that anyone would say, particularly having regard to the figures I have just quoted, that that figure can be regarded—certainly not as adequate—but as a fair reward or return for the increased productivity.
While we have every reason to be grateful for the Remploy factories, we would ask the Minister to consider very seriously increasing the number in Wales. I should like to make one other point, but as I know very many other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall be brief. I wish to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said about the need for small industries in the valleys. There is a tendency at the moment for industrial development to concentrate on the coast, and, indeed, we may find that in a number of years the valleys will be deserted and derelict. Should that happen the loss to the community will be incalculable. I therefore ask the Government to consider establishing—and to

put far more drive into trying to secure—small, light industries for the small market towns and the larger villages, places like Llandovery and villages like Felindre. These small industries would employ the local population which, at the moment, has to go far afield in order to get work.
My right hon. Friend has reminded the House that the unemployment figures have gone down, and we welcome that wholeheartedly, but we still have a record of unemployment in Wales which is twice the national average and is still the second highest in the kingdom. The House well knows that the figures of unemployment in Wales do not actually reflect the true situation, because they do not take into account the school leavers, the miners who have left never to return—and this may well be one of the great problems which will have to be faced by the National Coal Board—and the steelworkers who left when the old steel mills were closed down in South-West Wales. We still have a very considerable problem to tackle if Wales is to be able to say in truth that she is enjoying full employment and that she is giving a full opportunity for her young people and is also giving a chance for the elderly and the disabled to continue in employment.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Morgan: The subject which has been chosen for debate in the second half of this Welsh day is certainly one that affects the social conscience of everyone, whether in Wales or any other part of the country.
The question of the disabled is very properly referred to in pages 7 and 8 of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1960. I could have wished myself that rather more space had been devoted in that Report to this very important social subject. Despite the many excellent features that appear in the Report, I think that these twin problems could have been dealt with in rather more detail. However, they have been chosen for discussion today, and I am sure that all of us, inside and outside the House, will be a great deal better informed upon them at the end of this debate.
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that these questions cannot


be dissociated from the general question of unemployment, because the persons concerned, and I suppose the elderly in particular, are likely to be among the first to be adversely affected if the employment situation is unsatisfactory. I very much appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree with what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) that there is no ground for complacency in the unemployment figures, though personally I welcome the fact that there has been a small but marked decrease in the unemployment figures. Between June of last year and June of this year there has been an appreciable decrease from just over 21,000 to just over 20,000, and there has been a percentage decrease in Wales and Monmouthshire during the same period from 2·3 per cent. to 2·1 per cent.—not very much, but certainly a move in the right direction.
That is not the whole picture, and we must be fair about it. I understand that the vacancy figures in Wales have improved very considerably during that period, from about 12,500 to 16,500. This is particularly important where the disabled are concerned because, fortunately, it is possible to find employment for many of these unfortunate people in ordinary industry. In this connection. I am very gratified to learn—and I understand it to be the case—that it is possible to settle quite a proportion of the Section 2 disabled persons in ordinary jobs, not merely in sheltered employment, and this is a tribute at once to the efforts of the officials of the Ministry and to the co-operation of employers.
I hesitate very much to query any figures put before the House by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, but I understand that during the last ten years—from May, 1951, to May, 1961—the number of registered disabled persons who were unemployed in Wales has very nearly been halved—from upwards of 8,000 to little more than 4,500. I understand further that there has been a significant improvement during the last year. It may be that we are not considering quite the same figures, but I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to deal with this important point when he speaks at the end of the debate.
I should like to turn briefly to the work that has been done and is still

being done in Wales by the Remploy and Grenfell factories, which are briefly referred to in the Report. I join in the tributes that have been paid to the work done by the Remploy factories by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen, and, to a great extent, I would associate myself with some criticisms she has made.
It is hoped that Remploy, with a continued improvement in its trading, will find that its resources will enable it to make a progressive increase in the number of disabled persons employed. It is satisfactory to know that there are thirteen factories in Wales. Twelve out of the thirteen are in South Wales, and because of the disparity in population one cannot make too much complaint about that from the North. There is another significant factor which should be borne in mind when any criticism is made about the failure to establish further factories in Wales. Of the 6,000 or so employed in Remploy factories in the whole country, a little more than 1,000 are employed in South Wales. This is a very important point to bear in mind in view of the population comparison between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
We would do well to appreciate and pay tribute to the substantial contribution made by Remploy towards the solution of the problem we are discussing. I agree that in all probability the range of products could be extended and that the scale of wages deserves looking into, but there is a great deal to be said on the credit side.
In particular, the Remploy factories do not remain static in their attitude to employment. I was gratified to learn from a recent report that the Remploy factories have, by arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, taken in a small number of patients suffering from the effects of schizophrenia. This effort to give mentally disordered persons a place in the working life of the community deserves every sympathy and encouragement. The rehabilitation of these particularly unfortunate disabled persons is a challenging experiment, and it must be a satisfaction to us all that the results, according to the report, have so far been very encouraging.
Before leaving the subject of Remploy, should like to say that, appreciating


as I do the strength of the remarks made about wages and so forth, it must be a matter for satisfaction that during the last year the sales revenue exceeded £5 million. There was a marked increase on the figure for the previous year—an increase, I understand, of about 23 per cent. For the first time sales revenue has exceeded the total of wages and raw materials. In other words, the Remploy factories seem to be turning the corner in their development. One can, therefore, look forward with great confidence to an increase in their employment figures.
No discussion of employment of the disabled in Wales would be complete without reference to the Grenfell factories. They are to be found only in Wales. They came into being as the fruits of the labours of the working party set up in 1944 under the chairmanship of one who will always be known in South Wales as Dai Grenfell, and who was for so long a distinguished Member of this House.
It was the original intention of the Government that these factories should employ at least 50 per cent. disabled persons. South Wales was chosen as the area for them because that was where, unhappily, the greatest number of persons suffering from pneumoconiosis was concentrated. As the right hon. Member for Llanelly said, one cannot consider the question of disablement in Wales without thinking of pneumoconiosis.
It is perhaps unfortunate that because these factories were advance factories—not purpose-built—and because the rent rebate did not prove as attractive to firms as was originally hoped, the original terms had to be modified and rather less than 50 per cent of those employed were disabled persons. Even so, of the number employed, just under 2,000, in the thirteen factories which exist in Wales—by coincidence, it is the same as the number of Remploy factories—about 750 are disabled persons, and some two-thirds of them are sufferers from pneumoconiosis.
Perhaps the most satisfactory thing of all in this connection—it has been eloquently referred to by the right hon. Member for Llanelly—is the tremendous fall in the incidence of this dread disease

in recent years due to improved methods of dust prevention and employment of sufferers in dust-free conditions. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those responsible for this great deliverance. I have some interesting figures on this subject. I learn that in April this year there were only 400 sufferers from this disease unemployed compared with nearly 5,000 fourteen years ago.
Before I leave the problem of the disabled, there is one general remark that I want to make. It is a matter which I have discussed with hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). Obviously, the problem of the disabled exists in its most acute form within areas of concentrated population. It is there that the greatest efforts have to be made. But we should never forget that in the rural areas of Wales we find a person here and there who is disabled, and the needs of such persons must not be ignored.
I now want to say a few words about the employment of the elderly. I think it is right to say that the over-fifties in general have benefited from the improved employment position, and this is reflected in the decrease in the numbers of that group who are registered as wholly unemployed. According to the figures which I have received from the Ministry of Labour, there has been a reduction in this group during the last two years from nearly 9,000 to a little over 6,000. That is a very significant fall of about 30 per cent. There has also, during that period, been an increase of a few thousands in the number of those persons employed.
I was very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the difficulty of obtaining employment for elderly persons. It is clear that employers must constantly be pursuaded of the need to make full use of the services of older workers. The difficulty is—it exists elsewhere just as much as it does in Wales—that, to use an economist's phrase, when the economy is not buoyant, employers tend to become selective and older workers generally experience difficulty in obtaining employment. As I have said, it is a general problem and not peculiar to Wales. It is the duty of this House to ensure that the older workers benefit like everybody else from overall expansion and better distribution of industry.
Many of the problems discussed today are of general application, and I think it is fortunate and appropriate that we should have discussed them on the one day when we have, or should have, the Floor of the House entirely to ourselves. I hope that the observations that we have made and the conclusions that we reach will be of benefit not merely to our fellow Welshmen in the Principality but to Britain as a whole.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I shall confine myself to a few brief remarks on this subject because I had intended to speak upon another subject earlier in the day. I consider that this problem is in many respects just as serious a social problem in its impact on my constituents as the problem which we discussed earlier—the question of leasehold. Many of my constituents who are disabled are finding themselves faced with the problems of leasehold at the present time. I know that the leasehold question is not referred to in the Report which we are considering, and I will not discuss it any further, but I felt that it was important to stress the coincidence that today we are discussing two serious problems which affect many people in South Wales and my constituency as much as, any other constituency in the whole of South Wales.
I wish to refer to some statistics, from Government reports, about accidents in employment. I refer first to accidents in all employment and claims for injury at work causing at least three days' incapacity. In 1959 there were 826,000 such cases in the United Kingdom. The other figures that I have refer to other industries, but I want to point particularly to one industry in my constituency in connection with these accidents.
I repeat, therefore, that in 1959 there were 826,000 such accidents. In the mining industry—and I have 7,000 miners in my constituency—there were 209,168 accidents in 1959. The significance of the figures is that more than a quarter of all the accidents in the United Kingdom in that year occurred in the mining industry. Indeed, the figures for 1956, 1957 and 1958 show that in each of those years the incidence of accidents in the industry was more than a quarter of the total.
Now I turn to my constituency. I will quote two local figures. The question which concerns me very much is that of the disabled unemployed. In June, 1960, there were 157 Section I and Section II disabled unemployed. In June last there was some improvement, of which I am appreciative—although I have wondered, and have discussed with the managers of local labour exchanges, how much this so-called improvement is due to what I must, rather morbidly, call wastage due to death. Last June there were 144 Section I and Section II disabled unemployed. They have been unemployed for a very long time. This is a great social evil.
I want to compare that figure with the total number of unemployed in the constituency, because that is relevant. I must use the May figures of the total unemployed because I have not the June figures. The figure for May was 570, but I understand that it has been slightly reduced. Thus, 144 disabled unemployed represents more than 26 per cent. of the total. Indeed, in the figures for June, 1960, it was more than 30 per cent.—almost one-third—of the unemployed. That is why I am so very concerned about the disabled.
I want to pay tribute to the local factories in my valley, and here I must also include the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams) and Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), who have the trading estates of Treforest and Hirwaum. The factories in those estates and in my constituency are employing far more disabled people than the statutory percentage. I have stated in this House before that this is a great tribute to the industrialists there, and I again want to pay them tribute tonight.
I come now to Remploy. I add my tribute to that paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to this imaginative social innovation of the post-war years. It has had a considerable effect on the disabled, particularly in my constituency, where there has been such severe disability due to pneumoconiosis and other diseases. It is a great mistake of the Government of the day, whatever its political colour, to create a ceiling for Remploy. The figure is, I believe, about 6,000 for the United Kingdom as a whole, although I am aware


that the actual number now is 6,300 or 6,400. To create a ceiling is a short sighted policy, however.
Anyone who knew disabled persons who were unemployed before Remploy came into being, and has seen them after a period of employment in Remploy, has seen these men absolutely transformed. They are the envy of the few hundred disabled who are still unemployed in their neighbourhood.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that a promise had been made that when new Remploy factories were added the first would come to Wales. In a sense, that promise was made to me by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. My constituency prepared for such a factory but, unfortunately, it has not come about.
It is no good telling me that there are Remploy factories in Merthyr or Rhondda or at the bottom end of the valley, because the topography of my area means that, generally, one has to cross mountains in order to get to those factories. Indeed, from my constituency, quite a number of chaps are having to travel these arduous routes in the most inclement weather. I hope, therefore, that the Government, in their wisdom, will begin to look forward instead of back and will, when they come to extensions of Remploy, consider the claims of the Aberdare Valley.
I want to venture criticisms about the way in which Remploy appears to me to be working. I admit that the matters I shall refer to were raised with me many months ago, and it may be that some of these things have been rectified. But if they happen in other Remploy factories, then the Minister of Labour must pay attention to them. First, there is the question of overtime. In conversations I have had with chaps in these factories—and every point which I shall mention arises from such conversations—they were concerned with the excessive overtime that they were being forced to work. There was even the question of a night shift to meet extra work which had come in as an emergency.
But when one thinks of between one hundred and two hundred disabled people, most of them in Section I, in

my constituency, having to work night shifts and excessive overtime—which in view of their disability is not conducive to their progressive good health—and remembers that they have comrades who have been unemployed for many years, one can imagine the feelings both of those who are unemployed and those who are employed. But these men are afraid to refuse overtime.
There is also the matter of fit men, already in full time occupation in other factories, who have been brought in to cope with certain extra work at Remploy. In view of the purpose of Remploy, this is a shocking state of affairs. Then there is something which is, perhaps, not so objectionable to some people employed in Remploy but is certainly objectionable to me, and that is the use of a bonus system. Remploy is not the place to have a bonus system, whereby one encourages unfit men to do much more than they are perhaps physically able to do. A bonus system encourages such evils.
This all boils down to one factor. I admit that I may have a suspicious mind, but I ask the Minister to pay attention to what I am saying in case there is truth in it. I believe that certain managers of Remploy factories, by applying this bonus system, and by using overtime, encouraging night shift work, and calling in fit men to deal with extra work, are trying to enhance their own personal positions by making their factories highly competitive. I emphasise that that is my suspicion. I mention it here so that the right hon. Gentleman can step firmly down on this practice, if such be the case.
With these few remarks, I am expressing my constituency point of view about what I think is a serious position in Remploy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay due regard to these comments in case there is a grain of truth in them, especially in the last suspicion which I mentioned.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rees: I want to direct the attention of the House to paragraph 48 of the Report, which deals with the question of industrial rehabilitation, because it is most important to get disabled persons back into normal employment, although it may not be the employment which they followed before


their disability, rather than set up sheltered employment or specific employment for disabled people as a group. There is nothing more demoralising or worrying to a disabled person than to feel segregated from the general community for some reason of that sort.
For that reason, I draw attention to the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit at Cardiff and to the whole rehabilitation service. Before doing so, I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) said about the bonus system. I appreciate his anxieties about unfit persons being encouraged to work too much, to the detriment of their health, but that is a criticism of the method of calculating the bonus rather than a criticism of the bonus system as such.
There should still be a competitive spirit among persons who are disabled, and, although I hope that his words will be noted, that is not to say that the bonus system should necessarily be destroyed, but rather that the allocation of the bonus payment should be carefully related to the man's ability and his efforts.
In Mid-Wales there is a very good example of the provision of normal employment for disabled persons. It is in the Cambrian factory at Llanwrtyd Wells, which is run and administered by the British Legion. It is run at a substantial loss, but it nevertheless produces a normal commercial product in an atmosphere which gives the disabled the most incentive and the feeling that they are part of the community. If more can be done to help in that way, it will be greatly to the benefit of all concerned and of the community generally.
In Wales we have had a high percentage of industrial disabled because of industrial disease. Disabilities can be divided into two categories, those arising from industrial accidents and those arising from industrial disease. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that in relation to population there was a higher proportion of disabled in Wales than in the rest of the country. I cannot quote the figures, but I believe that it will be found that that is largely due to the number suffering from pneumoconiosis and similar diseases, rather than those suffering the loss of a limb, or having a limb impaired

in any way in the steel and other heavy industries.
As Wales tends to have a diversification of industry and to get many light industries and some changes in the heavy industries, we will find that there is a shift away from a higher proportion of those disabled by industrial disease to those disabled by industrial accident. As such, we should gear our plans to catering for the rehabilitation of those suffering from industrial accidents who can be brought back into useful and beneficial employment, not only to their own benefit, but to that of the community.
That brings me to the main subject of my speech, the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit at Cardiff. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the subject of this unit becoming residential, or of a separate unit being set up at Swansea, Llanelly, or Gorseinon. My right hon. Friend has given figures to show that such an arrangement would be uneconomic. Nevertheless, we must consider what is happening in Cardiff.
The Report says:
The strength of the Cardiff Industrial Rehabilitation Unit fluctuated during the year, averaging 80. Courses were completed satisfactorily by 81 per cent, of those admitted to the Unit during 1959: 67 per cent. of these were placed in employment or given vocational training. This was a welcome increase on the figure of 56 per cent. quoted in last year's report.
One of the difficulties is that we are not getting all those who are suited to, or who would benefit from, that course at Cardiff. They may have to live in digs. The Ministry of Labour works very hard and is to be congratulated and commended on its efforts to find accommodation for them. But a man has to leave his home and has to worry about the maintenance of his family and leave them while he is in ill health. He has to go to a new environment. There are people living in Swansea who think that Cardiff is a long way away, and there are people in Cardiff who are not always sure where Swansea is. Nevertheless, many men go to Cardiff to attend these courses full of anxiety and misgivings.
The net result is that the more timid, and those who can just manage, try to do for themselves and to stay put and to muddle along. They do their best, but the net result is that their industrial efficiency is impaired and their restoration to full health is impaired, perhaps


permanently. The result is that we do not get the full benefit which we might obtain from the unit.
I appreciate that when considering Wales the Minister has to remember that it is part of Great Britain and that what he does in one corner of the country will be blazoned across the Chamber here and that he will have shouts from all over the country asking why, if he can do something for South Wales, he cannot do it in other areas. Consequently, he has to look after the purse strings and make sure that he is not spending money too lavishly in one quarter.
However, I suggest that he considers parting company with responsibility for industrial rehabilitation, handing it over to the Minister of Health. I am not sure that the Minister of Health necessarily wants it, but we are dealing with human beings who are sick and ill. We talk of the industrially disabled, but that should include the injured housewife who is also an industrially disabled person needing treatment. There is no way of training her to use a broken arm, or to get along after an arm has been amputated. She needs training in the same way, but the unit at Cardiff is sectionalised to deal with those engaged in industry of one sort or another, although not necessarily of the type which they knew before disablement. Sometimes those engaged in clerical jobs need rehabilitation, major or minor.
There is a good physical medicine service in many hospitals in South Wales and, with a little co-operation between the two Ministries, it might be found possible to expand the physical medicine rehabilitation services in the hospitals to include a larger element of industrial rehabilitation. That will require considerable co-operation from industry as a whole, because it is no good trying to teach a man how to use a lathe when he has one arm unless one has the lathe on which to show him.
I have seen examples in some of the motor car factories where the firms have been prepared to adjust and even adapt some machinery in a small rehabilitation department of their own in order to get some of their injured workpeople back to work quickly. I hope that that is something which will spread throughout the country and will be used as an

example by the Ministry of Labour for many of our industries in South Wales.
The larger industries do much of this work, but, I am glad to say, in South Wales we are not concentrating solely and simply on the big units, but are encouraging smaller firms. Smaller firms, however, do not always have the resources to provide facilities of this type. If my right hon. Friend could see his way to expand them, I am sure that over the years we would gradually see the problem of the disabled reduced, although it will never become negligible because there will always be industrial accidents. However, the number will be reduced and we will be able to get people back into employment more quickly as we get expert advice about changing employment and getting disabled men into industries more suitable to their new conditions of health.
It has been suggested that one way of recruiting to the coal mining industry is to show that the dependants of men suffering from pneumoconiosis will be properly cared for, but more should be done to show what advance is being made with getting rid of dust in the mines. More research should be done. People are well aware of the problem, but if the authorities could show that they are trying to get rid of that dread disease—and it has been a dread disease in South Wales for many years—we should find that much of the problem would go and that in most industries the emphasis would swing more and more to industrial accidents and away from industrial disease.
I do not want to detain the House longer than to say that the figures are encouraging, but we must not be complacent about them. There is nothing more demoralising to the community than for it to have large groups of men who are unemployed and who, although they may be financially cared for by the State, feel that they are on the scrap heap and wasted. In the clubs and various social communities men have said to me that they are on the scrap heap, and that is demoralising to the person who hears it.
If we are to be competitive in world markets and in our own markets, we must use our labour to the full and to the most beneficial capacity. We cannot afford to have people injured or


ill, or disabled. I am glad to see the progress mentioned in the Report, for this is the most important aspect of employment, but I hope that in future Reports we will see even more encouraging trends, with the percentages falling and more people being more fit for work.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: One of the disturbing features of the problem of the disabled in Wales is that 10 per cent. of the number of disabled persons are unemployed. This has to be related to the figure of about 2·3 per cent. of the general unemployment situation in the Principality. This relatively high figure of unemployed disabled persons in Wales is at a time when the opportunities for employment are better than they have been for a number of years. We have seen established in the valleys of South Wales and in the cities in recent years additional factories and industrial undertakings, and one would have thought that the disabled would have a corresponding share in the increased prosperity. But that is not so.
I want to refer to the position of those who are seriously incapacitated and who require sheltered employment. In this state of affluence, when these factories are being built and the general unemployment figure is down to 2·3 per cent., the number of persons requiring sheltered employment has increased. It went up last year from 585 to 619. It may be argued that a few hundred men disabled is not a very serious feature, but I would remind the House that these men are seriously incapacitated. Some are disabled ex-Service men seriously maimed in the last war and some in the war before, and there are those who have been seriously incapacitated in industry, particularly in the mining industry, and serious cases of pneumoconiosis. These men require sheltered employment.
Within the figure of 619, there are some people suffering from various congenital forms of disability. Their numbers have increased at a time when there has been an improvement in the general employment situation in South Wales. That is a reflection upon the Government. The figure of 619 looks cold, but behind it there are human tragedies. It consists of people who have given up hope of getting

a job. Some of them are young ex-Service men, and they see no chance of a job. Their health is being impaired by their continued unemployment. Some of them have wives and children. Their wives are bound to go into the same markets and try to purchase the same food and clothes as the wives of the able-bodied section of the community. Many are poor, and are on National Assistance. I repeat that the number of disabled persons has increased from 585 to 619.
I pay tribute to some of our voluntary organisations, such as the Red Cross, which are doing so much to lighten the burden of those who require sheltered employment. I cannot say the same for the Government, who have the financial power to assist Remploy to set up more factories in Wales and provide further sheltered employment. The 1960 Report of Remploy points out that one of the results of the financial agreement arrived at in 1956 with the Minister of Labour was that Remploy was unable to employ more than 6,250 persons. That is shocking. Here we are with our affluent society, in the middle of so-called prosperity, and yet Remploy has remained static. In 1955, Remploy was employing 6,400 people, but the figure now is just over 6,000, and yet we have all around us this increased prosperity.
No Remploy factory has been constructed in Wales since 1952, yet Remploy was formed to give work to those requiring sheltered employment. Its organisation is efficient. The present situation is not the fault of Remploy; it is due to lack of financial support by the Government. It is a very serious criticism of Government policy that they do not feel able to afford to spend more money on capital expansion for Remploy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) has referred to the need for a factory in his constituency. What a great feeling of satisfaction there would be if it were known that another 200 seriously disabled men could get jobs. It is work that these men want. They want a sense of security—to be able to go out and get a job. They deserve all that the community can do for them. They are men who have been injured in the service of their country in war and in peace. They are disabled, and they feel that they are rotting away. What does it matter if we spend another £2


million on Remploy, bearing in mind what a sense of happiness and contentment we shall be giving these men, who deserve the best?
We talk about the need for recruiting men into the Forces. If we want recruits we must guarantee that in the event of disablement there will be a job available. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pointed out, the difficulty in the mining industry is that the men feel that if they are disabled they will not be able to get a suitable job. This feeling has eaten into their systems.
There is a Remploy factory at Blackwood, in my constituency. Very few people have been taken on there. After some efforts, one man was taken on not long ago. I met him and his wife a month later. It was a pleasure to see the look on his face. He was satisfied because he now had a job and was earning money, and was able to go out in the morning and return home in the evening with a feeling of self-respect. Seeing him was compensation enough for the efforts that had been made to get that man into Remploy. The Government have squandered far more than £2 million. That is all that we are asking should be given to provide work for these people.
What is the position of the ordinary disabled person who is fit for light work? It will be said that the figures have gone down. They have to some extent. Last year the figure was 4,562, and it has gone down to 4,024. That is some improvement, but the position ought to be looked into further, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of these men come from the valleys of South Wales, and in that area a number of factories and industrial undertakings have been set up. Steps should now be taken to see whether sonic of these industrial undertakings would be prepared to take an additional number of disabled people.
The employment of 3 per cent. disabled people is not sufficient in an undertaking which employs more than 5,000 men. That figure should be looked at again in the light of present circumstances. It should be increased to about 4 per cent. If that were done, it would provide additional employment in the valleys.
Next there is the problem of men having to travel to and from work. Even

if we get an additional Remploy factory in the valleys of South Wales, it will still be necessary for some men to travel from the villages. Travel is difficult for some people, particularly for those who suffer from pneumoconiosis and who feel the effects of it on a cold and frosty morning. It is about time that the Government encouraged local authorities to provide buses to take these men to and from work.
The Government do not seem to tackle the problem boldly. They do not give sufficient encouragement to local authorities to set up workshops for the disabled. The Act provides for local authorities to do this, but there does not seem to be any enthusiasm on the part of the Government to tackle this problem of the seriously disabled.
The hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) referred to the fact that some years ago 5,000 men in the valleys of Wales were unemployed and disabled by pneumoconiosis. Now there are about 400. Until about ten years ago men were not allowed to return to employment in the mining industry if they were suffering from pneumoconiosis. I have vivid recollections of dealing with many cases of men suffering from this disease. Thousands of men were unemployed, but then the Medical Research Council came to South Wales and recommended that many of these men could, in the early stages of the disease, be given approved conditions of employment. The result was that thousands of them returned to work in the mines, and they are there today. Thousands of men now at work in the pits of South Wales are suffering from pneumoconiosis.
I pay tribute to the National Coal Board for employing thousands of disabled men, both underground and on the surface. By doing so it has eased the anxieties of the Minister of Labour. I am sure that the officials at the Ministry of Labour breathed a sigh of relief some years ago when the National Coal Board decided to employ these disabled men.
I have been to the Cardiff Rehabilitation Centre and have seen the excellent job that is being done there. I was extremely impressed by their efforts but what I want to know—and I raised this point in the Welsh Grand Committee—is how many of these men, after being rehabilitated, receive employment. When


we last discussed this subject the figure of 56 per cent. was given. That is not an over large figure when one considers that, after receiving treatment, 44 per cent. of these people do not find employment. I therefore urge the Minister to look more closely into the attitude of the employers in this matter.
I appreciate that many employers employ more than the 3 per cent. disabled. But many, however, keep rigidly to the 3 per cent. figure. In this connection the Ministry of Labour should carry out a detailed inquiry to see how many disabled men have been taken into employment in the various industries in South Wales.
All hon. Members agree that Remploy is doing its work efficiently, and I agree that its sponsorship scheme, whereby certain employers supply the raw materials to Remploy and the workers there produce the necessary goods desired by those employers, is an excellent system. I pay my tribute to employers who have joined this scheme, but can we be told exactly how many have joined? I often feel that the whole question of Remploy should be publicised more in order to make its efforts better known.
How many Government Departments, for instance, are taking commodities from Remploy? Are Government Departments encouraging Remploy sufficiently? The same question can be asked of local authorities. Are they giving some of their contracts to Remploy? And what about some of the other industrial undertakings? Many hon. Members are extremely interested in the activities of Remploy, but we seem to hear little of these activities. Going about the country one might see the occasional van passing by bearing the Remploy name, yet very little is known about the actual work going on. In order to make it more efficient, everything should be done to encourage that organisation's activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare spoke about pockets of unemployment in South Wales. That is very true and, for example, in Bargoed there are 108 disabled unemployed and in Blackwood 82 or 85 are unemployed. Those are just two examples, but the areas, added together, result in a considerable figure of unemployment. I therefore

urge the Government to study this problem of unemployment and disability with much more initiative than they have done hitherto.
I hope that we shall receive a concrete reply from the Minister tonight as to what steps the Government are prepared to take to improve the situation of this section of the community that is deserving of the best, and I hope, too, that as a result of this debate we shall get something definite, which we have not had before. I hope also that hon. Members will receive a concrete reply about Remploy and the financial handicaps that are preventing this excellent organisation from carrying its efforts still further.
All hon. Members are anxious to see these people employed, and if we do not receive some definite undertakings from the Government we shall take the matter into our own hands and point out the failure of the Government to do something more quickly. After all, if something cannot be done now—at a time of full employment—what hope have we if unemployment comes next year or the year after? Now is the time to get these disabled men and women employed.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: So far every speech that we have heard has dealt with South Wales. For the next ten minutes I should like hon. Members to come with me to North Wales. If it were possible I should like to drop them at Llangollen, where they would see the representatives of the world enjoying themselves.
Anyone who represents coal miners and quarry workers must have an acute knowledge and experience of the ravages of one disease in particular, pneumoconisis. It is extraordinary how recently this disease was recognised as an industrial disease. It used to be generally believed that it was a chest weakness which was peculiar to certain areas or perhaps was the result of heredity. One has only to read the gravestones in any quarry town or village in North Wales to appreciate how merciless this disease has been. Before it became recognised as an industrial disease very little, if any, precaution was taken against it because, as I have said, it was believed to be inherent in the worker himself. It was


believed that it was his constitution which was at fault and not the constitution of the industry in which he was engaged.
The only underground slate quarries in Britain, if not in the whole of Europe, are to be found in my constituency of Merioneth. In places like Corris and Blaenau Ffestiniog this disease has been rampant, and it is heartrending to speak to men of middle age who are doomed for the rest of their lives to be out of work. They are good men, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has referred to their calibre.
A fortnight ago I had occasion to go to the tuberculosis sanatorium at Llangwyfan to see a councillor of Blaenau Ffestiniog who was there suffering from this disease. Standing by his bed I recognised three more people from Blaenau Ffestiniog suffering from the same disease. One was a former quarryman's union secretary. In the fifth bed was the chairman of the Gwyrfai Rural District Council, a personal friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), suffering from the same disease. They were all there in this sanatorium trying to recuperate.
One would be much happier if these people were cared for, received adequate pensions or decent compensation. But, indeed, not only are they badly treated in life; they are badly treated at death. I want to refer to an un-Christian and inhuman practice. If a man has been certified for twenty years or more to be suffering from this disease and has been compensated for it, when he dies his poor widow cannot claim compensation until his lung has been extracted to prove to the doctors and the tribunal that he has been suffering from silicosis. Yet for twenty years he has been gasping for breath, and it has been obvious to anyone who has spoken to him that his lung has been solidified by the dust from the stone and the slate.
Apart from these effects, these people are physically fit in every other way, but they are obviously unfit for heavy work. Nevertheless, they deserve better of the nation than to be left on the scrap-heap, as happens today. They could be usefully engaged in a specialised industry. This would answer two purposes.

First, it would make them independent, and every man wants to feel independent, after giving his life to the nation in industry. Also, it would prevent them from dwelling on their plight and having the mental agony which so many of them suffer now.
We shall for all time be grateful as a country to the late Mr. Ernest Bevin for all he did on behalf of the disabled and for convincing us in a practical manner that the disabled could be restored to become useful citizens. I emphasise that in this debate: Bevin believed and proved that the disabled man could still be a useful citizen.
It is incredible what a disabled man can do. During the war, at the behest of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who was then a highly placed civil servant—I was always obedient to her, and I only hope that her husband has been as obedient as I always was—I went to an institution at Colwyn Bay to interview the secretary. After I had rung the doorbell, the door was opened and an armless man confronted me. I was much intrigued to know just how he had unlatched the door. Imagine my surprise when he told me that he was the secretary I had come to interview. During the interview, he wanted to make some notes. He put a pen between his toes and wrote in a manner which would put my penmanship to shame, and I am an ex-school teacher, supposed to be an expert in legible writing. He showed me his paintings which would do credit to the Royal Academy. This man was the product of the Remploy factories. He was armless, but he was yet able to prove himself a useful citizen. I say again that we are indebted for all that to the late Mr. Ernest Bevin.
I do not know how much it costs the nation to produce a man able to do those things. But who would begrudge whatever it cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty mentioned a sum of £2 million to establish a Remploy factory. We cannot measure these things in £ s. d. We owe a debt to these people who have given of their best in the interests of their country.
This is a Welsh day and one is excused for making constituency points on such an occasion. So far, I have dealt with


men who are suffering from one particular disease. Of course, there is inevitably a large number of such men in every quarry area, in Merioneth and in Caernarvonshire. Unless the Government find means of employment for these men, they will be doomed to be left on the industrial scrap-heap because we cannot expect private enterprise to step in. We cannot depend on philanthropy and altruism. One cannot think of an industrialist saying, "I shall establish a factory here because these men are unfit and disabled". Therefore it calls every time for Government action.
I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister to the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog. There is one thing in my favour in so doing. Blaenau Ffestiniog is scheduled as a development area. The Government therefore recognise their responsibilities in relation to this town and the area around it. I discovered last week that of all the people signed on at the labour exchange 37 per cent. of the men are disabled and 15 per cent. of the women are disabled. These are astounding percentages, but they will appear more astounding when I say that people suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis are not included in them. It will therefore be appreciated what a great problem we have in Blaenau Ffestiniog.

Mr. Brooke: Would the hon. Gentleman give numbers and not merely percentages?

Mr. Jones: I will. I anticipated that I would get that question from the Minister or from an hon. Member opposite. It is true that there are only sixteen disabled men, apart from the other people about whom I have been speaking. They can be reckoned by the scores. It is obvious from speaking to men in the town that many of them are suffering from this disease and therefore should not be called upon to do heavy work or work as heavy as that which they are doing. We have had the pump storage scheme in operation at Blaenau for the last three years. Many people other than those which make up the 37 per cent. to which I have referred would gladly go to work there, but cannot find employment there because of their peculiar chest trouble.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that a promise of a Remploy factory for Wales

has been made by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) put in a claim for it. I ask the Minister to let us have two such factories, but, if there is to be only one, let it go to North Wales, and let it go to Blaenau Ffestiniog. It would also serve the surrounding area. It is all very well for the Minister to derive some courage from numbers. However, we must deal in percentages, too. The In-came Tax people deal with me in percentages rather than numbers. On humanitarian grounds alone, I ask the Minister to think of these men, having worked hard down in the bowels of the earth, knowing the risks that they were taking but believing that perhaps the disease would avoid them. However, it did not avoid them. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the eloquence that I can muster, to consider the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog and its plight in this respect.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I imagine that it is very rare that an hon. Member on either side of the House is followed in the debate by a Member on the same side. I am sure that it is even rarer that a brother in the flesh follows his hon. Friend. That is the only way to put it in Parliamentary language. I know Blaenau Ffestiniog very well. I know it almost as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). I speak now in all seriousness. I am certain that 75 per cent. of the gravestones in the Bethesda Cemetery at Blaenau Ffestiniog record deaths of people below 50 years of age. That is a terrible indictment of what has gone on in the past.
We had an excellent opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who dealt with the matter positively and exhaustively. He knows the problem from the beginning to the end, and I trust that the Minister will take good note of what he said. We have also had interesting speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who made some revealing observations regarding Remploy factories, from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and, similarly, from my hon. Friend the


Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). On the whole, we have had a valuable debate.
We on this side consider the subject of employment of the elderly and the disabled of such importance that we were prepared to allot to it half of the only day that we are allowed to discuss Welsh affairs in this Chamber—not that these people are numerous as such; indeed they form a small proportion of the population. But in times when we are prone to think in terms of large numbers and high percentages, it is only right that we should on occasion focus attention on the few whose lot is less fortunate than our own.
We are dealing in this debate with people into whose lives has entered a strong element of tragedy. Tragedy is personal. It is individual. Numbers and percentages do not measure tragedy any more than a number of thermometers decides the temperature of an area. It is no comfort to the individual sufferer to know that thousands of other people are suffering in the same way. It is a personal experience and, consequently, the problem must be reduced to individual terms. In this case, we must think exclusively in terms of individuals.
In the final analysis—and here I give my little philosophy of life—we Shall be judged by our attitude towards the less fortunate members of our society. The principle involved in the statement
I will give unto this last, even as unto thee
—a statement found at the end of a parable dealing with the unemployed found standing idle in the market place—is not only sound morals but sound economics. It predated Keynes by nearly 2,000 years. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1943, introduced by the late George Tomlinson, enshrined that principle. It is one thing to have a Measure on the Statute Book, but it is quite another matter to apply it with the vigour which the conditions demand and with the determination which those who sponsored the Measure expected. It is often urged that although this human problem deserves our most serious consideration, we should not forget to look at the financial aspect. Of course there are financial implications. Of course money is involved. It stands to reason that

money will be spent, but every penny lost on the balance sheet will be more than balanced by the weight of human happiness and human welfare on the other side. Indeed, it would be a very grave indictment on the present order of things if a population of 50 million people, supposedly in an affluent society, could not honourably support this infinitesimally small proportion of the working population. Indeed, the Tomlinson Committee expressed this very forcefully. It stated:
In an industrial country such as Britain the number of separate occupations is so large and the demand for physical activity is so varied that it is possible to find occupations within the physical capacity of all save the small minority of disabled.
But these disabled people need not be a dead weight on the economy. They can, within their capacity, contribute to the national dividend if given the opportunity to do so.
I have visited the Remploy factory at Wrexham. I have visited other factories and other works in the country, and a visit to a factory or to a works can be informative and is usually very interesting. When I visited the Remploy factory on the Wrexham industrial estate I found it not only informative, not only interesting; it was inspiring and uplifting. I was impressed by the excellent tone of that factory. Everyone was usefully employed. There was obvious joy in work and happiness in achievement. The articles of furniture produced, tables, chairs, filing cabinets, were without fault and without blemish. It was craftsmanship at its best.
Prior to the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1943, those men would have been allowed to drift and to fend for themselves as best they could. Many would have moped away their time in their fireside chairs in their poverty-stricken kitchen. Others would have wandered aimlessly in the streets. The Remploy factory is a symbol of change, the symbol of a revaluation of human values.
The principle has been accepted. It is accepted on both sides of this House. It is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. My question now is this, is it being fully applied? Although there has been sweet reasonableness in this debate so far, I am afraid I cannot promise that for the next ten minutes or so.
In 1947, in times of great economic difficulties, when the struggle for priorities was very keen and intense and when resources were very few, a start was made and six Remploy factories were built. That was in 1947. By 1951, four years later, the number had reached 86. That is what I call determination. That is what I call vigour. Then, in 1955, ten years after the war, after four years of Tory rule, the Government decided to stop the intake into the Remploy factories to save a few hundred thousand pounds, and yet at the very time that the Government decided to stop further intake into the Remploy factories the then President of the Board of Trade was able to say:
Production is up, and is rising … The figures today show that production is 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. above that for the corresponding period of last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 161.)
That was in 1955.
What has happened since? Not a single Remploy factory has been built in Wales since that year. Not a single Remploy factory in Wales has been extended since that year. On the contrary, there has been a decline in the number employed in Remploy factories in Wales.
In 1955, 1,025 severely disabled people were employed at the 13 Remploy factories in Wales. By 1958 the number had fallen to 992 and by 1960 it had fallen to 966. Are we to infer from this, as has been suggested by some hon. Members opposite, that we are on the way to solving the problem of the disabled? Only three paragraphs are devoted to the subject in the Report on Developments and Government Action where it is stated that 5,034 disabled persons were unemployed in Wales in December, 1960 and that the number of severely disabled persons unemployed was 619.
I should like to make a comparison of these figures so that the House may see the seriousness of the position. The number in Remploy factories was 966 and the number of severely disabled people outside the Remploy factories was 619. Is that the measure of the Government's achievement—60 per cent. in Remploy and 40 per cent. outside? Against that background we are told, and I want the Minister to note the quotation carefully, that

Grenfell and Remploy factories maintained a satisfactory level of employment, and vacancies in Remploy during the year totalled 114, all of which were filled by severely disabled workers.
What sickening satisfaction! What brazen-faced complacency!
Of course, all the vacancies were filled, but should there not have been more vacancies and do not the Government enter the matter at that very point? The figure of 5,034 unemployed has not been broken down into different categories but when the number of vacancies is 114 and the number of disabled people unemployed is over 5,000 there is a disparity for which the Government must find an answer. The fact is that the number of vacancies in Wales today and in Britain generally is static and there is no evidence of an effort on the part of the Government to increase the number according to present day needs.
As to the general question of disabled persons, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare referred to conditions in his own constituency, but I want to refer to Wrexham where conditions are much more serious. There are 284 disabled unemployed people in the Wrexham division and I ask the Minister for Welsh Affairs to take serious note of the fact that the number has been on the increase for the last two years. During the past year 88 disabled persons were placed and 284 were not placed. It is not to the credit of the Government that the 88 were placed, but it is to their discredit that the 284 were not found places. The 88 were placed as a result of the attitude of local firms and the energy of local officers of the Ministry of Labour, but it is the function of the Government to understand that in Wrexham there are for each person placed three who are not placed.
I suggest that this is no time for complacency. I ask the Government what lies behind this persistent determination on their part to check experiments in human welfare. Why cannot they engender a little more enthusiasm for the Remploy factories? Here is a rich field for experiment. The Remploy factory is not perhaps the only answer, but there is no field of experimentation more rich in its potentialities than this field of experiment in regard to disabled people, and yet we have all the evidence that the Government are shirking the issue.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Welsh Affairs and of the House generally to Government action in Wrexham. We have already had evidence of Government inaction. It is my unpleasant task now to refer to Government action, and I shall do so briefly, not because it could be disposed of briefly but simply because this evening I shall be satisfied with sounding the alarm.
Wrexham is the only place in North Wales with an industrial estate, and on that industrial estate there is a Remploy factory. Wrexham is an industrial area, formerly devoted to heavy industry—coal, steel, brick and tile making and chemical industries, all with a high rate of industrial accidents. It had an unbalanced economy, and it consequently suffered severely during periods of trade recession. To balance the economy, the Royal Ordnance Factory was converted into an industrial estate, and the area was scheduled as a development area right down to the last General Election. It was descheduled as a development area on the narrowest of margins. Of course, we were promised that other industries would be attracted to the area. The Minister for Welsh Affairs told us that the prospects for Wrexham were very promising indeed, and that the development of the motor industry on Merseyside would bring ancillary industries to Wrexham.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade informed me in February, 1960, that he expected that jobs for 400 would accrue in Wrexham in the near future as a result of projects in hand or in prospect. That was eighteen months ago. Not a single firm arrived, and the people of Wrexham are still scanning the horizon for the 400 jobs which they were promised eighteen months ago. On the estate itself, there are 33 acres of land cleared specifically at a cost of £40,000 for industrial development. Around this industrial estate is a green belt, which the Government mean to preserve, so that here alone—I should like to have the attention of the Minister, because I am speaking with great concern—here alone on this industrial estate is land with roads, electricity, water supplies and railway facilities where industry can be attracted. Not only is this

estate excellent for the purpose, it is the only land available near Wrexham for this purpose.
A deputation from the Wrexham Town Council, the Wrexham Rural District Council and the Denbigh County Council met the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to see what could be done to attract industry to the estate. It was an intelligent delegation, as one would expect from Wrexham, and they could read the Parliamentary Secretary's face like a book. They knew that no industries would come; nor have they come. They were right and the Minister was wrong. Faced with that situation, they suggested that rather than the industrial estate should be broken up, they as the local authority should be given the opportunity to purchase the estate outright and become responsible for its development. They asked to meet the President of the Board of Trade to discuss proposals and expound their plans. The Minister refused to see them. It was left to the civil servants in Cardiff. It was at that level that this question of major national importance was discussed, and it was at that level that preliminary decisions were taken.
A few weeks ago the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, a member of another place, visited the estate. He very kindly informed me that he meant to go there. He wrote in a charming way, and he has, of course, his own personal charm. But I must be quite frank and say that I would have preferred that he should have stayed away. I could read the evil omen. A few days later I received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade stating that he had decided to offer the factories for sale to the sitting tenants, and the land, the only land available and readily usable for industrial purposes, to former owners. I have yet to be convinced that the sitting tenants voluntarily requested the purchase of their factories. Suppose they do not want to buy? What then? This is a serious question.
The Minister of Labour was formerly the Minister of Agriculture and he must be aware of what I am now saying. In all seriousness, again I say that I am fully convinced, and shall remain so until it is proved otherwise, that there has been continual and persistent pressure on the Minister to sell this land.


The President of the Board of Trade has persistently refused to tell us who the people are. What we are told is that it is the normal policy of the Government. This is undoubtedly the last refuge of a stubborn and unimaginative Minister. If this is normal policy, if this is the policy for Wrexham today, we are entitled to ask whether it will be the policy for Treforest, Fforestfach, Hirwaun and Bridgend tomorrow.
On the Wrexham Industrial Estate there is a Remploy factory. Is that also to be offered for sale? Is that also, despite all that it involves, to fall under the auctioneer's hammer? If so, what is to happen to the severely disabled people employed there? What is to happen to the Remploy factories on the trading estates at Treforest and Bridgend?
The Minister for Welsh Affairs must know what is happening. The first victim of Government policy, the first industrial estate to fall under the auctioneer's hammer is in Wales, of whose affairs he is the appointed custodian. The Government's policy in this respect is really shocking. Let not the Minister seek to tell us what he and the Minister of State have done. The Government are unscrambling the Wrexham Industrial Estate, and for that single act of economic vandalism the Minister must take his full share of responsibility.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I think that everyone who has listened to the debate will agree that it has been extremely interesting and very constructive. I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for putting so fairly and without exaggeration the very important points that he had in mind. That atmosphere has continued throughout the rest of the speeches to which we have listened.
I felt some shyness when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) say that this was a day when all Welsh Members were delighted that they had the House of Commons to themselves. I am not a Welshman but I was determined to play my part in a debate on a subject which I think is of very considerable importance to us all.
Although this subject is one which can often be analysed by using figures and statistics, a theme of the debate in the hearts of hon. Members was that, however much we might quote statistics to prove or disprove a case, what really matters is that we are dealing with human beings, and that it is the human approach to the problem which is of concern to us. Each disabled person is a separate individual with his own needs and problems. It is not much consolation to an unemployed disabled man to be told that he is one of 2,000 out of work rather than one of 10,000. What matters is how this affects the individual himself.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly said that he welcomed the improvement in the general employment situation in Wales, but went on to say that there are still difficulties. He and other hon. Members have stressed that there is no ground for complacency although there has been this improvement. I join in that sentiment. Indeed, I go perhaps a little further. It is true that, whereas in Great Britain as a whole, about 16 per cent. of the unemployed are registered as disabled, in Wales itself more than 22 per cent. are registered as disabled. It is also true that in Wales nearly 11 per cent. of all registered disabled persons are unemployed, compared with 7 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. Therefore, there are particular problems affecting Wales to a greater extent than other parts of the country. But in spite of this we can agree that, although we still have a long way to go, we have made good progress recently, and there are strong grounds for hoping that this progress will be maintained.
I have listened carefuly to the points put forward by hon. Members about the subject of more Remploy factories and I shall refer to this a little later. But one thing my Department has learnt in its sixteen years' experience of working the Disabled Persons Employment Act is that, given care in finding the right job, the great majority of disabled people are capable of undertaking ordinary employment.
We can go further and say that, for most disabled people, the only completely satisfactory form of resettlement is work in ordinary employment which they can take and keep on their merits in competition with able-bodied workers. From this


it follows that the greater part of the needs of disabled persons unemployed in Wales, as elsewhere, must be met through increased opportunities for work in ordinary industry, rather than by the setting up of more Remploy factories or sheltered workshops.
The opportunities for employment open to disabled men and women clearly depend on the employment situation generally. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh if I would correct some figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave—they were, indeed, corrected from the right hon. Gentleman's own side—about the nature and number of jobs available and the numbers of registered disabled men. The figures are that in June, 1951, there were 7,807 registered disabled men and women in Wales who were unemployed, while last month the number was 4,459. This figure is the lowest since 1957.
One of the difficulties we have to face—and the right hon. Member for Llanelly brought this out very fairly and it is a major factor—is that more than half of the disabled men in Wales who are unemployed and considered suitable for work in ordinary industry are over the age of 50. More than one in four has been unemployed for more than a year. The rate of unemployment among able-bodied men and women over 50 is also well above the average, although in this respect the situation in Wales is no different from that in the rest of Great Britain where there is a special problem of finding employment for those people of 45 to 50 and over.
I hope that the House will agree that our disablement resettlement officers are going flat out to try to help to solve this problem. They have a special problem in finding work for these disabled people and they are doing all that they reasonably can. I think that the House would agree that the disablement resettlement officers do a good job, and are immensely assisted by the disablement advisory committees who do so much work to help my Ministry in its job. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work done by these public-spirited men and women who give up their time to work on these committees.
The work of the Cardiff Industrial Rehabilitation Unit has been mentioned.

The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said that he was there fairly recently and he was good enough to pay tribute to the work being done there. I am glad to say that the performance is better than the House generally knows. About 500 disabled men and women complete courses at the Cardiff unit each year, and of those who completed the course during the first half of 1960, 73·6 per cent. had been placed in employment or accepted for training within three months of leaving the unit. That is an improvement on the figure of 67 per cent. for 1959, which was quoted in the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire, presented by my right hon. Friend in March.
The men and women who come to the unit are those whom the disablement resettlement officers find most difficult to resettle in work. Remembering this factor, we can agree that this record of success—with gradually improving percentage of people who are able to find employment after passing through the unit—is satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) told the House that he had been in touch with me about his concern for rehabilitation facilities in West Wales in general. When I was in Wales on my last visit, this matter was brought to my attention, and I know that there is a good deal of local feeling about it. I want to tell the House briefly what the situation is and what my view of it is.
If an industrial rehabilitation unit is to be opened anywhere, it will be agreed that it must function properly, and to do that it needs a certain minimum number of staff and a minimum number of people undertaking courses. The inquiries I have made show that a unit in West Wales would run out of people who might use it in about nine months. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set up a new unit at Swansea. I have, however, arranged for a special message coming from me to be sent through my controller in Wales to long-term unemployed disabled persons in the West Wales area pointing out the opportunities available to them at Cardiff and the benefit which a course at Cardiff would give them in taking advantage of the better local prospects of employment.
My hon. Friend also suggested that I might hand over my responsibilities in this matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I have no intention of handing over responsibility, but I have been in tough with my right hon. Friend who is looking into the adequacy of the facilities for medical rehabilitation in West Wales. I shall keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend about industrial rehabilitation while he is making his study of his side of the responsibility.
We also have in Cardiff a Government training centre with 100 training places in trades such as engineering, radio and television servicing, motor repairing and wood machining. The House may be interested to know that we are opening additional classes in electric welding and hairdressing, and that we are also considering setting up two further classes, one in engineering machine operating and the other for instrument mechanics. Courses in other subjects are available at Government training centres elsewhere and in the residential training centres for the more severely disabled. During the last twelve months nearly 250 disabled men and women from Wales received training under these various scheme to fit them for employment suited to their capacities.
I said that I would try to deal with a number of points raised by hon. and right hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Llanelly, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), the hon. Member for Bedwellty and many others who have spoken in this debate.
First, I should like to spend a few minutes on the question of Remploy. Most hon. Members have said that we need more Remploy factories in Wales. I recognise that communications are a particular problem in Wales, but I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has done a great deal to improve them. I admit that there are difficulties. It is because of these difficulties of communication that Wales has been given what might appear to those who live outside Wales to be rather more than its fair share of Remploy factories. Out of the 90 Remploy factories, 13 are in Wales and they employ more than 1,000

severely disabled men and women. Although the right hon. Gentleman showed that the numbers employed were static, because of wastage, retirement and in certain cases death, during last year 160 new disabled people were taken on by Remploy to replace those who left for one reason or another.
I think that the House also knows that I recently announced that Her Majesty's Government are providing extra financial assistance to Remploy for the next five-year period. I believe that this will lead to an increase in the numbers employed. Although I cannot give the promise for which the hon. Member for Bedwellty asked, I can say that, with the more generous financial arrangements which are being made, I hope Remploy will be able to take on more people than at the moment.

Mr. Finch: The Remploy officials say that as a result of financial arrangements and agreement between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and Remploy, they are restricted to the employment of 6,250 disabled persons. Is that agreement now to be changed whereby they will be in a position to employ more disabled people?

Mr. Hare: These financial arrangements will enable Remploy to take on more people.
Some criticism has been expressed about wage rates, bonus arrangements and overtime. Wage rates are arrived at by negotiations through normal union-employer channels, as are bonus arrangements. As for overtime, the House must not get the wrong impression. It is not normally worked. No doubt the examples of which hon. Members are thinking are instances where, for a particular reason, a factory has had a contract with a customer and has been in danger of not being able to deliver on the right date. In circumstances like that overtime is occasionally worked, but it is not the normal procedure in Remploy.

Mr. Finch: That may be so, but I must come back to my original point. Will the arrangement that the Minister says is being arrived at with Remploy allow it to employ more men? Will more money be given to Remploy to enable it to set up another factory in Wales?

Mr. Hare: Either the hon. Member is being obstinate or I am being unclear. I have said that I cannot give him a promise that a new Remploy factory will be built, but under the better financial arrangements that we are making it will be possible for the existing factories to take on more people. I thought that I had made that reasonably clear.

Mr. Probert: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this expansion, will he bear in mind areas like mine, which has no Remploy factory, so that the disabled people there will have some benefit?

Mr. Hare: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Aberdare has said, but I do not want to get into trouble with his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), who said that the situation in his area was no better than that in Aberdare.
Apart from the sheltered employment provided in Remploy factories there are seven workshops for the blind in Wales, employing 239 blind men and women. Four of these workshops have recently begun to admit sighted disabled persons, who now number 27, and there are prospects of gradually increasing this number.
I believe that it was the hon. Member for Bedwellty who asked why more could not be done to raise the quota figure of 3 per cent. I would point out that I regard 3 per cent. as a minimum and also that many people employ considerably more than that minimum. I am told that 417 employers in Wales employ 5 per cent. or more disabled persons. I am sure that the House will be with me in saying that the greater the number of employers who adopt that attitude the better it will be for the disabled in Wales.
I do not wish to keep the House for too long. I know that there are some points with which I have not been able to deal in detail. Further, some points have been mentioned which do not lie within my responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has been present throughout almost the whole of the debate, and he has taken a note of the points made. In respect of those points with which I have not dealt and which are my responsibility, I will get in touch with hon. Members later on.
I stress again that the employment opportunities available to the disabled must to a large extent depend on the opportunities which are available for men and women generally. I think that it has ben admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite that what has taken place in Wales during recent years is little short of revolutionary.
Only last week when I was in Africa I was talking to a young Royal Air Force officer who from time to time visits his parents in Ebbw Vale. He said, "What people do not realise is that it is now an entirely different place." There is great truth in that, and I do not see why this improvement should not continue.

Mr. Michael Foot: He may be able to say that about Ebbw Vale, but he cannot say the same about Rhymney and Tredegar, where they are suffering from all the stresses which were emphasised by my right hon. Friend. They may be hypersensitive in Wales about the migration of population, but in the Heads of the Valleys they are concerned about it. They are concerned lest the kind of thing which happened before should happen again.

Mr. Hare: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is convinced that it will not happen in Ebbw Vale and that he generously comes to the support of what he considers to be his less fortunate neighbours.
I do not believe that enough credit has been given to my colleagues who have been responsible for trying to encourage new industry to go to Wales. I am referring to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and to their predecessors. Too much has been taken for granted, and it is only fair to say that there has been this real transformation. Thanks to this transformation of new industries coming into Wales, the prospects of good jobs for those who live there are better now than they have been for years.
This improvement is something in which the disabled can expect to continue to share. I assure the House that my Ministry will continue to do all it can to be of service to the disabled men and women of Wales.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before he sits down, will the Minister deal with one point?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) made a statement which I think ought to be noted. Perhaps the Minister for Welsh Affairs would like to deal with it now. Have the Government decided to dispose of the trading estate at Wrexham? If so, it will be a major change in national policy. I hope that the Minister for Welsh Affairs will realise that if this estate is disposed of we shall take a serious view of such a move. This estate was devised by the Coalition Government and the Labour Government to try to solve the unemployment problem. The news given by my hon. Friend alarmed me.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of this as news, but he can hardly have read the papers. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) spoke about what I frankly supposed was well known to hon. Members. Where he went wrong was to insinuate that this was a threat to the prosperity of Wrexham. There is no truth in that.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned that the owners of the factories on the trading estate—which at the moment are rented from the Government—were being pressed to purchase them. This is compulsory leasehold enfranchisement. I understand that, but I was concerned about the land itself; that the estate as such was to be broken up and it was not to be the sale of the factories only.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman does not read the Western Mail and the Liverpool Daily Post, both of which have published these facts.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire for 1960 (Command Paper No. 1293).

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [7th July] on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Second Schedule.—(MODIFICATION OF S. 2 IN RELATION TO PROPERTY FALLING WITHIN S, 3 (3)).

Which Amendment was:

In page 14, line 18, at the end, to insert:
or
(c) not being special-range property, accrues to the trustee, after such division as aforesaid, as owner or former owner of special-range property comprised in the fund".

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we had proposed also to take the Amendment in page 14, line 18, at end insert:
or
(c) being property which, in respect of any holding of special-range property, is or has at any time been acquired pursuant to the power conferred by subsection (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925".

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It was said of the late Serjeant Whittaker who was once engaged as counsel for the appellant in another place, that he sought to put a question to which exception was taken by counsel an the other side. A long dispute followed and their Lordships retired to consider the point. They returned, re-examined the matter and they retired again to consider the paint and finally they told Serjeant Whitaker that he could put his question. He replied that he had, by this time, forgotten it and would proceed to put another question.
I am not precisely in that position because if I tried to put another question you would very properly rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker. But I am in some difficulty in concentrating my mind on the question which was opened on Friday last in the concluding hours of a somewhat arduous day. I rose.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who had been responsible for the Clause, and I, were here very substantially to put what we thought was an important point which seemed to indicate, perhaps, some possibility that the Act itself had not completely covered a difficulty of trustees.
With that consumate tact for which I am normally noted, I realised at the very late hour that it might be easier for an hon. Member of the Opposition than an hon. Member on the Government side to raise the matter at a time when the Government were hoping to get their Bill. So I opened the question and was about to put to the House a speech on a subject which, I felt, I had mastered in the last few minutes when, because of the time, like an ever rolling stream, you put an end to my observations, Mr. Speaker, because of the rules.
Then I saw the Solicitor-General and I handed to him by brief. Unfortunately, I have not got it back. Whether it is now clogging the usual channels or not, I do not know, and I speak, therefore, in some difficulty. I think I can—because I am sure that the intentions of the Government on this occasion are honourable—with the brevity of the briefless, acquaint the House of the principal nature of the problem which I have in mind.
Section 10 (4) of the Trustee Act, 1925, enables trustees to exercise a preemptive or conditional rights accorded to them by any company in respect of which they hold shares by virtue of a dispensation in the will or by law of the land but, in general, by dispensation of the will because this refers primarily to equity shares. It gives trustees power to have three possible options. They may exercise the right, they may assign the right at a price, or they may renounce a right. But, of course, in either of the first two circumstances they must treat either money they have got by exercising their right or assigning their right from shares they hold as capital.
Then I come to the problem which arises out of the Second Schedule of this Bill. When they have exercised the power under the will to retain shares

they have taken no step which is affected by the Act. When they have exercised their powers under Section 10 (4)—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Trustee Investments Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Hale: I was afraid, Mr. Speaker, that time, like an ever-rolling stream, was doing something more.
As I was saying, under Section 10 (4) they exercise their right and at that moment nothing has happened which involves the necessity of taking any action even if this Bill becomes law. But when the Bill does become law and the trustees then exercise the rights given by the Bill, in Clause 3, to invest in equity shares, they come under the provisions of Clause 3 and the relevant Schedule and in due course may be called upon to make an allocation and to say which of their trustee holdings are to be classified as one range of investment and which are to be classified as the other. At that stage, of course, the problem is that they have acquired under the Trustee Act, 1925, certain rights, options and shares which then have to be allocated. I am putting the matter as briefly as I can and I hope that I am putting it clearly. If I fail to be clear, I apologise.
The problem which learned counsel discovered and the difficulty to which the Law Society called their attention was that at that stage the trustees may find themselves forced to 20 back into the long and tortuous financial history of the matter involving the previous trustees, and to ascertain the history of those shareholdings which were acquired before the Measure came into operation. I do not think I need go into the details of the two separate problems which were postulated in the brief which I hope the Solicitor-General still has, and to which I hope he has given more study than I have been able to give because I have had it for a shorter period than he has. This was raised on the Amendment to the Second Schedule and the Amendment


which the hon. Member for Crosby had tabled in accordance with a suggested Amendment which was put to us by those who have been exercised by this problem.
It is fair that I should say—and I hope the hon. Member for Crosby will think I am right in saying—that even on that Amendment doubts were expressed as to whether it was drafted in a hurry because the point had only been recently discovered and doubts were expressed by its authors on all the problems which arose from the conflict of these provisions. I understand that Her Majesty's present advisers have had an opportunity of considering the matter, and it may be that at a later stage the House will be asked to recommit the Bill and to consider another possible Amendment.
I express my gratitude to the Solicitor-General and to the Economic Secretary for the promptitude with which they have considered this point, and the hope that they and their advisers will have found a solution which will be acceptable to the House and effective in operation.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): It must be very rare indeed that Ministers find themselves able sincerely to express gratitude to an Opposition Member who has talked out one of their Bills. This is quite genuinely one of those cases, because there is no question that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) were on a good point here. I am very grateful that we have had a chance of considering it, and, indeed, that the hon. Gentleman was courteous, kind and helpful enough to give me his brief. I am sincerely sorry that I have lost it by now. I handed it immediately to Treasury Counsel, and it is he really who is the dishonest one; but I will try to recover it and hand it back to the hon. Gentleman. However, the hon. Gentleman did remarkably well in speaking without a brief, and he explained the point which we have had a chance of considering. It is not only the actual logic of the position but even more the Practical difficulties which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I had an opportunity of discussing at once with the Public Trustee.
The problem is a genuine one, and it would, I think, have led to real difficulty in the work of trustees under the

Bill on the lines which we proposed. I think it would probably be more convenient if I explained at a later stage what we propose to do and why we propose to do it. We found that the only convenient way of dealing with this matter without a muddle was—I am sorry we have to do it—to ask the House to recommit the Bill and make an Amendment to Clause 3. Therefore, I shall in due course move a Motion to recommit the Bill in respect of the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 29, at the beginning to insert:
or which became part of a trust fund in consequence of the exercise by the trustee, as owner of property falling within this subsection of any power conferred by subsection (3) or (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925, or paragraph (o) or (p) of subsection (1) of section four of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921".
It is sufficient now for me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which I had moved. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will see fit to withdraw his Amendment in the Second Schedule, page 14, line 18, at the end to insert:
or
(c) being property which, in respect of any holding of special-range property, is or has at any time been acquired pursuant to the powers conferred by subsection (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby has not been moved. It has only been discussed.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to move his Amendment, because the starred Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 29 to which I have referred fully meets his point and, as he will see, it does various things which there was not time to cover when his Amendment was being drafted.
The two Government Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 14 line 21, and in page 14, line 22, fall with the Amendment which I moved and which I now ask leave to withdraw.

Mr. Graham Page: May I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? I suspect that he is about to do something which will prevent me from thanking him at this stage for the course he has taken. I am very grateful to him, and to the hon. Member for Oldham,


West (Mr. Hale) who helped me out of an embarrassing situation in this case. I did not want my right hon. and learned Friend to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment before I had an opportunity of thanking him.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that the House will now allow me to take the course I suggest.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule.—(REPEALS).

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, column 3, to leave out "Second" and to insert "Third".
My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he does not propose to move the Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 14, line 21 and in page 14, line 22. They are, in a sense, consequential on the Amendment which has now been withdrawn. It remains for me, therefore, to move this Amendment, which is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 29, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Anthony Barber.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair.]

Clause 3.—(RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACT AND OTHER POWERS OF INVESTMENT.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the beginning to insert:
or which became part of a trust fund in consequence of the exercise by the trustee, as owner of property falling within this subsection, of any power conferred by subsection (3) or (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925, or paragraph (o) or (p) of subsection (1) of section four of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921".
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has given the reason for this Amendment. Perhaps I should just

outline again why the Amendment is necessary.
Clause 2 (3) deals with accrual to the trust fund. In paragraph (a) it provides that bonus issues shall attach to the part of the fund to which the parent investment of the bonus issue belongs. In line 43, a rights issue is for convenience treated as a new investment and not split between its bonus element and its investment element. It is treated purely as investment and divided between the narrower range and the wider range parts of the fund.
Clause 3, which was virtually rewritten in Committee with a view to making it far more simple and streamlined than it was, deals with property which is held under special powers of the trust instrument. That may be an investment which is expressly authorised or it may be purely covered by some such words in the trust instrument or will as a power "to retain the investments in the portfolio as existing at the time of my death", or it may be simply a power to postpone conversion. That would be sufficient to make them authorised investments.
When we came to deal with accruals in the original Amendment which I moved last week, we sought to deal with accruals to the special range part of the fund—that is, the investments which were specially authorised holdings apart from what was authorised by the general law—analogously to the way in which they were dealt with in Clause 2 (3). That seemed to us to be logical and to fit in with the general scheme of the Bill. But, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out, that would lead to very great practical difficulties where the trustee had to earmark all acquisitions and sales of rights, and particularly, as he pointed out, the rights issues that were attracted under Section 10 (4) of the Trustee Act, 1925.
It might be all right if we were starting from today, but all this would involve retrospective research. In addition—and I was assured by the Public Trustee that this was a valid point—it would be almost impossible to sort out, particularly in respect of the rights issues under Section 10 (4), which was the original


authorised investment and which were the rights issues which were subscribed for under that Clause. We have thought it right to include the rights issues and the investments which are made under Section 10 (3) and also the comparable Scottish statutes.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, because this Amendment covers the point which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I put forward. It will be of particular assistance to a trustee who finds himself with the power under the trust instrument, or perhaps by means of an administration, to hold securities which are not in the trustee security class and then has an offer of a rights issue which he takes up. As the Bill stood, that matter was left in the air. There was nowhere to place it. The Amendment clearly shows how it should be dealt with, that it should attach to the shares in respect of which he has taken up the rights issues. If the shares are held under special range property, then the shares taken up under the rights issue come under the same category.
10.15 p.m.
There is one word in the Amendment on which I should like an explanation. The Amendment begins with the words
or which became part of a trust fund".
This Amendment fits into subsection (3) of the Clause as a second category of property which becomes special range property. Subsection (3) begins by saying that the special range property shall include the property which is held by the trustee otherwise than as expressed in the subsection, and then this additional holding comes in under the Amendment.
By the word "became", the Amendment seems to refer only to the past, to rights issues taken up in the past. I am sure that I am construing it wrongly, but to the layman it seems to read like that and that the Amendment will not apply to rights issues taken up in the future after the Bill becomes law. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend 1he Solicitor-General can assure

me that I am wrong in my interpretation, but I do not know why the past tense was used. One would have expected the words "has become" or "becomes", or something like that, to include the future.

Mr. John Diamond: I should like the Solicitor-General to say whether I am right in assuming that the difficulty which we are now solving arises only from a desire still to divide as to fifty-fifty or any other distribution the kinds of funds held by a trust and that if there were no such division, it would not matter whether it was in the narrower range, the wider range or the special range; it would merely be in the trust itself.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is right. If there were no narrower range, wider range or special range part, this problem would not arise. It is because we have now created this third category of a special range part that the problem arises of a rights issue which is, if I may put it this way, ascribable to the special range investments.
In reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), the word "became" was put in advisedly in the past tense. What we are talking about is what is in the fund already. Whatever is in the fund must have come into it in the past, however immediately in the past. Therefore, the tense was the past tense rather than the present tense.
One other reason is that we thought that the present tense might lead to an ambiguity, but I need not go into that. It faintly suggested that there was the same trustee throughout, and that, of course, is not so. The main reason was that we are talking about what is in the fund and, therefore, it must have come in, however immediately, in the past.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (on re-committal), considered.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Barber: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I need not detain hon. Members long on this occasion. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill has undergone something of a metamorphosis since it had its Second Reading in this House. Its head and its tail remain much the same, but its body has changed and become somewhat more flexible. In making the very considerable changes which we made in Committee we have given effect to very many of the views which were expressed on both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate.
Hon. Members on both sides made it clear that perfection of principle should not be bought too dearly, and that it was felt that more weight should be given to the need not only to make the provisions of the Bill more easily understandable to the lay trustee but also to keep within reasonable bounds the amount of work which it imposes on trustees. It was against this background that we considered the Bill in Committee, and I think that the thoroughness with which we tackled the job is evidenced in the fact that it took us twelve sittings to deal with twelve Clauses.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by referring to the specific changes which we made, but I do want to mention one particular matter which, I think, is of importance. There are, I know, hon. Gentlemen who still have doubts as to whether we have gone far enough in this Bill, but whatever one may think about this there can be no gainsaying the fact that the proposed provisions are very big changes in provisions which have been virtually unaltered for the last seventy years. It may be that in the course of time some further relaxation will be warranted, and in that case provision for stepping up the wider-range part of the fund may be invoked, but I should like to correct two misapprehensions about these provisions which seem to have arisen since last Friday. One of them is a misapprehension about which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) knows.
In the first place, I have heard it suggested that this provision is such that at any time after the passing of the Bill the Treasury may, if it so wishes, direct

that a higher limit than 50 per cent. should apply to particular trusts. Those of us who are familiar with the background to this new provision and the discussions which we had in Committee will, of course, realise that that is not the intention and that the provision if it were introduced at all would be of general application.
The second misconception is that the introduction of the provision on Report reflected some last-minute change of policy by the Government. This again is inaccurate. The Government still consider that in present circumstances the 50–50 division should continue and that basis will apply when the Bill becomes law, but bearing in mind that trustee legislation is a pretty infrequent occurrence—the Trustee Act, after all, is now some thirty-six years old—we recognise that there is merit in the proposal that power should be taken to deal by order with the situation which would arise if at some time in the future it was considered circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant a higher limit than 50 per cent. The Government tabled the Amendment as long ago as April.
As I say, I do not want to go into the details of the Amendments which have been made, but in conclusion I should like to express the thanks of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself to all those on both sides who have contributed to our proceedings since the Bill came to this House, and in particular to express my appreciation to the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Whether they were harrying the Government or, on some very rare occasion, speeding the Bill on its way they could not have been more courteous, but whatever our differences I think that it will be agreed by all hon. Members who took part in the debates that the Bill is a landmark in trustee legislation, and I commend it to the House.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I should like to thank the Economic Secretary for those kind words and to congratulate him on his own success, with the assistance of the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate, who also appeared at


times, in bringing the Bill through its somewhat tumultuous career. It came to the House in one form from another place. It was greeted with almost universal disapproval in detail and approval in principle, in the sense that every hon. Member felt that the present trustee legislation was hopelessly out of date and something ought to be put in its place.
The Bill went to Committee and the Economic Secretary would be wise not to resist too severely the suggestion that the Government sometimes changed their policy on it. They changed it again and again, and whether the final result is really sufficient for the purpose which the Government have in mind I still take leave to doubt. I am not at all certain that the Bill will fulfil all that is required at the moment or even be workable in a sufficiency of cases, though in some no doubt it will. It may well be that we shall have trustee legislation again. Indeed, I am practically sure that we shall have it. If we do we shall see that whatever deficiency is in the Bill at the moment is a deficiency in the direction of not giving sufficient discretion to trustees, who are called "trustees" because the beneficiaries trust them and who should be trusted more than they are in the Bill.
I shall not go into that question now, but I was a little alarmed by our earlier discussions today. We had seen at the very last moment one point and had corrected it. I wondered as we discussed it whether there were not many others which we might have failed to see, especially in a Bill which has suffered so many changes in the way that this one has suffered them. The exceedingly complicated structure that results reminds me of the Greek monster that was a lion in front and a dragon behind and in the middle a chimera. I am rather afraid that there is something of a chimera in this Bill.
I may be wrong but nothing shakes my conviction on two points. Firstly, something badly needed to be done and this, therefore, is a step in the night direction. Secondly the Economic Secretary, the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate had a very difficult part to play and they played it with the courtesy and skill which we have come to expect of each of them. The Lord Advocate even

succeeded at one point in defending a proposition of Scottish law which to most of us English seemed to verge on the absurd. There was nothing that they could not do.

10.29 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I, too, sometimes have had doubts about the value of the Bill but for reasons opposite to those expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I hope that that fact will give encouragement to the Government. On Second Reading I said that I viewed its methods with distaste and its principle without enthusiasm. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that the method of the Bill has been enormously improved during its passage through the House, but unfortunately that improvement has been at the expense of the principle which was first expressed by the Government and which, as far as it went, I thought was sound.
I am all for testators and settlors giving their trustees the widest power of investment. There I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I would always advise that to be done, but that is, of course, at the start of the trust and at the start there are no vested interests in existence. I am afraid that it is quite a different thing when the Government seek to amend the law affecting trusts many of which have been in existence for a number of years. I am afraid that the Bill will cause a great deal of disappointment.
Many of those who are enjoying the life interest of investments in the sort of properties included in the Trustee Act, 1925, are elderly people who are struggling in great difficulties in these days on a fixed income. Many think that when the Bill is passed they will be able to switch quite easily into those delightful investments which have been described as "blue chips" and which yield astronomic interest on the money originally invested. They will find that when the Bill comes into force and they ask their trustees to make the change which they have been expecting, they will be advised that this can be done only at a very serious loss of their immediate income and, indeed, for the benefit of those who come after them.
Conversely, there will be a number of people who have been looking forward to the Bill as providing some means of saving what they regard as the wreck of the capital left them by their father. They will press their trustees to make the change at the expense of the tenant for life, and that will arouse very unfortunate conflicts. Those conflicts may be resolved by going to the courts. It would be a great pity if a Bill such as this merely resulted in further litigation, but where trustees do not go to the courts they will have to take most invidious decisions themselves. That is putting an unfair burden on trustees, and in the long run it will not do any good to our trust law.
For these reasons I do not regard the Bill with any great enthusiasm. I think that it has some good points. With regard to future trusts it is perhaps even to be welcomed. But I think that it will cause disappointment, and it may well be that we shall be considering this matter again before a great many years have passed.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: I am in a somewhat ambivalent position tonight. I recognise that, as has been said, the Bill is completely unrecognisable compared with when it was introduced, and that the changes have gone in one direction only—the direction which my hon. Friends have been pressing and with which I have been most happy to be associated. I am most grateful to the Government for having advanced in that direction.
I think that perhaps the matter was understated when the Minister said that we had spent twelve sittings discussing twelve Clauses. There are fifteen Clauses in the present print of the Bill, and I think that there is another to be included as soon as it is printed again. In fact, the Bill that we are now considering has at least sixteen Clauses and five Schedules. It is a quite considerable Bill. I want to stress, lest it should be misunderstood, that that Bill has been considered with the greatest possible dispatch and that the minimum time was spent on its consideration.
I want to add to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. No one could appreciate the courtesy of the Solicitor-

General and the Economic Secretary more than I do. I can say this because I recognise that one method that I choose of trying to put my point of view is perhaps rather pointed and forceful. I make no apology for it in the light of the fact that it is from time to time admitted, but I realise that it is difficult to have to sit on the Front Bench and listen to all this prodding and goading and maintain the complete and perfect courtesy and charming manner maintained throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I register my very deep and sincere appreciation of it.
Although there has been considerable advance in the line which my hon. and learned Friend has pressed, the Bill should not be regarded as an advance in all respects on the previous Trustee Act. It bears, unfortunately, the mark of retrogression in the sense that, whereas trustees previously had complete discretion to choose from a list of trustee investments, they no longer have that discretion. I have made this point so many times that it must be extraordinarily boring for the House to have to listen to it again, but it is right for us to bear in mind at this late stage that this is a major difference. I believe, as does the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), that all trustees should be given discretion with new trusts and investments. I regard it as an unfortunate development that trustees should not have the same discretion as they have had since 1925 to choose from a list.
It was right that the list should be widened. It was right that the trustees should be required, as they are in one Clause, to take advice. It was wrong that they should have an arbitrary limit put on their selections within the list, notwithstanding that these selections might not be right and in the best interests of those whom they are looking after. I regret that, and the purpose of my intervention at an earlier stage was to reinforce the point that the Amendment which was last introduced into the Bill makes the matter simpler and more straightforward than it would otherwise have been, but that, where there is a rights issue of a certain kind, instead of having a narrower range of investments, a wider range, a special range and one range "in the air", although we no longer have the one "in the air" there are still three different


categories to take care of, and the trustees are to be responsible for seeing that these categories are taken care of all the time.
Although this is a simplification of what would otherwise have been the case had my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) not talked the Bill out on Friday, this cannot be regarded by a prospective trustee as a matter of absolute simplicity, and it is one which will not encourage people to take on trusts gladly.
I therefore repeat that it is unfortunate that this principle became embedded in the Bill in another place, and it is unfortunate that we have not got completely rid of it. But I feel that once the 75–25 proportion is introduced, trustees will undoubtedly select equities, which continue to rise over a long period as gilt-edged do not, and that, once the other Clauses are taken advantage of, we will get to a stage where there is little difference in practice between the 100 per cent. latitude I have always advocated and compliance with the terms of the Bill.
It was unfortunate that the Patronage Secretary was not present when the Solicitor-General congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West on talking out the Bill. This is a precedent which should be borne in mind on both sides of the House. I was doing my best on that occasion to help the Government get the Bill before Friday was out. This shows how one should not seek to limit the process of democracy which, in the long term, always turns out to be right.
I take pleasure in the fact that here is an example of courtesy, good will and flexibility by the Government. It shows that there are occasions when backbenchers can put their views, when the Government are prepared to listen, and when it is not right to say that backbenchers waste their time by preparing carefully drafted Amendments only to see the Government voting them down. This Bill has proved that when private Members put forward views sensibly and when they are on a sound point, Governments do yield in the course of battle to the merits of the argument and produce Bills which are considerably better in the long run.
I invite whoever is to reply to say one thing more about the 75–25 proportion. It is being understood very rapidly among the people that this proportion is not a power which the Government may introduce later but is already on the Statute Book. It is not on the Statute Book. I understand that the Government's position is the 50–50 ratio and not the 75–25 ratio.
Having regard to the fact that so many are already under this misapprehension and that trustees will naturally, as soon as the Bill becomes law—if they have not done so already—consider how far they will go, many will say, after taking the advice of their lawyers and finding out that it is likely to be 50 per cent., "If we are going to make a division as is required under the Act had we not better wait a little until the Government make, up their mind about the 75 per cent.? After all, it would be better to do the thing in one go." There is no time limit on the 50 per cent. or the 75 per cent.
I am sure that it would be a matter of convenience to a vast number of trustees and to the gilt-edged involved if the Government could give some indication when they would turn their mind to the 75 per cent. as opposed to the 50–50. We have got over the stage of the Amendment being introduced and no one is making any special point about the breach of principle. We are now on the point of the convenience of trustees in managing their trusts.
Although I recognise the slight difficulty in which this might place the Government, I am sure that it would be an enormous convenience if something along these lines could be done. Even if the Government were to say, for example—although I should be very disappointed if they did—that under no circumstances shall we consider this matter for five years, trustees would know that they would have to make their decision on the basis of the 50–50.
The Government may say that as things are going they will reconsider the position in a year's time. This would be a sufficient indication to trustees to make up their minds appropriately. It would be an enormous convenience to trustees, and I hope that the Government will do what they would not normally do on a Bill of this kind having regard to the fact that as the


Amendment was introduced very late in the proceedings—I agree that it was an undertaking given in Committee—it did not get the same sort of publicity as would an Amendment introduced on the Floor of the House and having regard to the fact that a newspaper such as The Times, in its City column, virtually represented it as an existing part of the law rather than as something which the Government have power to bring in. Having regard to all those things, I hope that the Government will be able to say something on the matter.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: May I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on their conduct of the Bill? I do so with considerable enthusiasm and sincerity because throughout the proceedings on it they had to face not only frontal attacks but attacks from the rear, and they always did so with the greatest courtesy and good humour and provided very full explanations of the Government's reason for turning down our Amendments on many occasions and accepting them on others.
This Bill, of course, sprang from the admirable idea of greater selection of securities for investment by trustees. Unfortunately, in the course of legislation it has got rather bogged down in technicalities and it may well be that many trustees and their advisers will say that it is so technical, complicated and difficult that they do not want to be bothered with it.
My reason for rising is to put on record—this has not been mentioned very much—that such trustees may well find that they come within the sphere of the Bill without taking advantage of the 50–50 division of their trusts. Under Clause 5 there are some changes in the law relating to trustees whether they take advantage of the division of the trust under the Bill or not. They are bound as trustees under Clause 5 to consider the diversification of their investments. They are bound to consider the suitability of their investments. Indeed, if the trust instrument gave them special powers they still have to take advice on investments which come within Part II of the First Schedule—investments which the ordinary trustee

may well think are very like trustee securities, and wonder why it is that he now has to take advice about them when he did not have to do so before.
The first few subsections of Clause 5 impose upon trustees new and quite onerous duties of continually attending to their trust investments, continually seeing that they are suitable, and taking advice before making new investments. These are new duties which affect even those trustees who do not wish to take advantage of the 50–50 division and to invest half the trust fund in the wider-range securities.
I do not think that many voluntary trustees will be affected—and by "voluntary trustees" I mean trustees who have been asked by the settlor whether they will be trustees, and have gone into the matter and allowed themselves to be appointed trustees with their eyes wide open. They know that they are undertaking a trust. The present number of trust instruments which bind such a trustee to trustee securities must be very few. The type of trustee who will be caught by Clause 5 is what I would call the involuntary trustee—the administrator who has taken on the administration because he happens to be the nearest relative. He finds himself holding funds under the statutory trusts. He is holding them under a special range property and, holding them as such, he comes within the terms of Clause 5 (2) and has to get advice, and so on.
He is the person who will be mainly surprised by the Bill, and who needs to be warned by his advisers of what he is in for. It has not been sufficiently recognised outside the House that this is not merely a permissive Bill, telling trustees, "You may divide your trusts and invest half in wider-range securities if you adopt the procedure laid down in the Bill", but a Bill which imposes new duties, which should be well publicised. I am not complaining about those duties; I merely express the hope that trustees and their advisers will realise that these new duties are contained in the Bill and that it is not merely permissive.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Barber: Perhaps I should say a word or two in reply. In Committee we discussed at considerable length the scope of Clause 5 and the extent to which


it imposed new duties in relation to the powers conferred by Clause 1. I will not go into details now, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will appreciate that Clause 5 (2) and (3) refer to the taking of advice before exercising any power conferred by Clause 1. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that Clause 5 (1) is of more general application, but it was my view in Committee—and it still is—that that subsection, although being of more general application, does little more than codify the existing law.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) asked me a specific question about the power to vary the proportion of investments which can be held in the wider range as a result of the power to introduce a Statutory Instrument for that purpose. I think that he asked whether we had made up our minds about the possibility of going to 75 per cent. Our minds are made up. We believe that at present the division of 50–50 is right. The provision to vary that proportion upwards in the case of equities is a provision which may be used in the future if circumstances change, but certainly there is no such intention in our minds at the present time.
From what has been said, the House will appreciate that the Government have been extremely flexible in the way that they have dealt with the representations made from both sides. We have the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on the one hand, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) on the other, taking almost divergent views, and we have tried to do the best we can to make everybody happy, including the trustees.

Mr. Mitchison: May I correct what was really a careless and discourteous action on my part? The hon. Gentleman also had—and I am sure that he appreciated the value of what they had to say—the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and my other hon. Friends who diligently attended the long meetings of the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Barber: I am sure that anybody who attended the meetings of the Committee upstairs will be glad to admit that we had advice from all quarters. Even

this evening I noticed that once again we had this divergence of view among hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Gloucester said that the Bill bore the marks of retrogression, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that it was a step in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
That one tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, and one tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1948. —[Mr. J. Griffiths.]

EXPORTS (STATISTICAL RESEARCH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

10.52 p.m.

Mr. John Woollam: I wish to discuss the subject of more statistical research into our export trade, but first I should like to apologise to my hon. Friend for the short notice that he and his Department have had of the subject matter of this debate. I have explained the reasons which led to the change of subject, and I think that my hon. Friend understands them.
I think that anyone would agree that more information on a difficult subject such as exports would obviously be welcome. There are some aspects of our export trade about which too little is known. If more information were available, it might help both the Government and private industry in formulating fresh policies.
By way of example, I suggest three possible lines of research. First—and I put this first because I think that it would probably be the most significant and rewarding line of research—it would help


if we could ascertain the proportion of our exports which takes place on credit terms. I am aware that a rough guide is afforded by the returns which come from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, but that is only part of the story. A large volume of short-term credit is afforded through confirming houses, merchanting firms, and manufacturers themselves in the normal course of the trade credit which they extend to clients.
All those forms of credit are not necessarily reflected in the E.C.G.D. figures. If we could commence some research into that aspect of our export trade, we should begin to understand how dependent our exports may be on credit. We should have a clearer understanding of the effect their interest rates have on our exports, and on the competitiveness of our exports. For example, if the Bank Rate goes up I per cent., the finance charge element on our export prices goes up by at least 1 per cent. We do not know, at the moment, over what extent of our export trade that rise happens. Does 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of our export trade immediately and directly suffer from this finance charge?
Thus, if we could have more thorough research into this problem of exports on credit, we might have a clearer understanding of the relationship of monetary policy and export prices. That is, if not an unknown, a major controversy in our major export affairs today.
A possible second line of research would be to try to find out what proportion of our exports are being handled by confirming houses and merchanting firms, as distinct from that proportion of our exports which are handled direct by the manufacturers who make the goods in question. It would be necessary, if the results are to be meaningful, for comparative figures for our competitors, particularly Germany, to be produced. I am only guessing, but I suspect that we should find in the case of Germany that a higher proportion of their exports—or, perhaps, a higher proportion in certain categories of their exports—are handled by merchants, often trading on their own account as principals, than in the case of this country.
In any case, such facts and such a contrast would provide a clue to the

superior export achievements of, for example, Germany. The question is really whether it will pay us better to put more of our exports into the hands of merchants, whose job it is to specialise in overseas selling, or whether it is a better theory that those who make the goods, the manufacturers, should have that responsibility through their own sales departments of trying to sell their wares overseas.
These two views exist, and experience in this country has changed considerably since Victorian days. It is my impression that Germany does more of its exporting through merchants than does Britain. It may be easier, if the statistics are made available, or amplified, to examine further our invisible export earnings, particularly with regard to shipping and investment overseas.
I have two points in mind. First, in the case of shipping, we have the global totals for the overseas earnings of our shipping but what would be more significant, I think, would be for us to find out what proportion of those earnings represent cross-trades—earnings of our shipping industry which result from their bearing on two foreign countries without them touching this country. It would be a guide to the formation of taxation policy, for it would give a better understanding of our overseas earnings that are truly earned overseas without any United Kingdom element entering into it.
Many European countries exempt, or partially exempt, earnings from cross-trades, and such a view is mot dissimilar to that which inspired the overseas trade corporation concept in 1957. We should also 'have a more informed picture of our shipping earnings which would help us in deciding policy in regard to cargo discrimination, because the main argument against this country retaliating, and the Board of Trade commencing any policy to take powers to retaliate, is whether or not we are more vulnerable than any country to retaliatory methods, and whether those retaliatory methods would really hurt us in hitting cross-trades between two foreign countries. Statistics may be available, but they do not seem to be generally understood or known. If made publicly available, they would help many of us in forming our views about those two aspects of shipping policy.
Also, there is the need for more information about invisible earnings coming from our overseas investments. I need do no more than refer briefly here to certain articles which have appeared in recent months in bank reviews which have expressed disappointment at the yield or reward in terms of invisible earnings flowing to this country from the considerable post-war investments overseas. The disappointment ends on a note of puzzlement because there does not seem to be an analysis available of quite why that should be so and why we are not receiving the dividends, yields and rewards which we expected.
I well understand that my hon. Friend, in replying to those three points, may not be able to carry the discussion very much further tonight—they are technical points—and he may wish to correspond with me later. I hope that, at least, he will not present the argument that what I suggest will simply mean more paperwork for industry. Industry will always co-operate—this has been my experience in business—for the purpose of research if the research has as its objective helping the Government to increase their understanding and formulate a better informed and more effective policy.

11.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) on his second choice of subject tonight and on speaking on it so lucidly. I shall do my best to deal with the points he has raised. He was kind enough to say that I was under certain limitations in dealing with them now; nevertheless, I hope to be able to give some response to his arguments and suggestions.
My hon. Friend said that more information is welcomed. That, of course, is well recognised by the Government. He will probably recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st August, 1956, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave six or seven matters on which he intended to obtain further information. One rather interesting thing he said in answer to a supplementary question, which has a bearing on our debate tonight, was this:
I think that the part of our statistics which is already almost complete is that which deals with exports and imports. That is very com-

plete and up-to-date, and I do not think that very much more needs to be done to improve it.
However, he went on to say:
With regard to invisibles and the balance of payments—and especially the movement of capital—we are consulting the Bank of England to see whether we can make this information more up to date, more complete and more accurate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1403–4.]
The results of that consultation came when Lord Amory made a further statement in a Written Answer on 28th April, 1959, in which he dealt with balance of payments statistics. He said that he intended to invite industry to co-operate in the supply of statistics on this very point of invisibles and the balance of payments. He said:
The first is interest, profits, dividends and capital transactions connected with investment by British companies abroad and the similar investment by overseas companies in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1959; Vol. 604, c. 114.]
I am happy to say that we have had excellent co-operation from industry in this respect. Naturally, it has put an extra burden on industry, and, in certain cases, companies have occasionally demurred at supplying the extra information; but when it was pointed out to them how very valuable the extra information was, in every case, I think, they have been willing to supply it. I acknowledge the ready cooperation of industry and the great value of it. We do not pretend that we have reached perfection by any manner of means. There is a good deal more to be done on this side of the "invisibles" and particularly on the side of overseas investment from this country and the returns on that.
My hon. Friend has raised three specific points, the third being divided into two parts, and perhaps I might deal with those points in the order in which he raised them. He asked, first, about what proportion of our exports were made on credit terms and on that he referred to export credit guarantees. I can tell him that the evidence of the guaranteeing of export credits is a most useful pointer. About 18 per cent. of export trade is guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and about three-quarters of these credits relate to goods supplied on six months' credit or less.
In highly competitive fields, even 1 per cent. of price matters, and it would be


completely wrong to give the impression that a small percentage was insignificant in these calculations. For example, if we were borrowing at, say, 8 per cent. and our competitors were borrowing at 4 per cent. and the credit was for three months, our credit would be adding 1 per cent. to the bill over that of our competitors. It must also be remembered that credit rates represent only one factor, but they tend to affect the whole economic field. A reduction of interest rates in general might have an adverse effect on our export trade. It might well result in higher imports, less personal saving, and more expenditure on consumer goods.
What my hon. Friend suggests is that it might be possible to establish the overall extent to which our exports are handicapped by high borrowing rates. The difficulty here is to get exact information. For example, some exports are specifically financed by borrowing, such as the more expensive capital goods, but in other cases manufacturers finance them from internal reserves or by borrowing. There is a variation between manufacturer and manufacturer, between market and market, and even between customer and customer. Nor, if we had the information, would it be very much use unless we also at the same time had information from other countries, and that, so far as I know, is not available.
We shall, however, certainly have a look again at this point. I am not certain as to how far we can meet my hon. Friend on that point. It would be a valuable pointer if we could get it, but I must say that I am not certain at first sight whether it would not involve a disproportionate amount of information being sought from industry, and a disproportionate burden being placed upon it. In the last resort, this matter is dictated by the economic situation of the country in which our export drive must work.
My hon. Friend suggests that we ought to know the proportion of our exports handled by manufacturers, as compared with those handled by merchants and confirming houses. My hon. Friend asked how the proportion compares with the German figure. All I can say is that the information collected in the 1950 Censuses of Distribu-

tion and Production suggested that merchants, including agents, handle over one-third of our total exports. I do not know whether comparable information is available for Germany. I was extremely interested in the suspicion expressed by my hon. Friend that there may be a higher proportion of trading through merchants in Germany and that that might place German exporters at an advantage over our own. I should like to argue with my hon. Friend privately on that subject. We cannot very well go into it at great length tonight, because we are concerned particularly with statistics. I am inclined to think that even if we knew the figure, and even if we knew the German figure, it would be extremely difficult to make any valid deductions from those two figures.
The next point raised by my hon. Friend concerned invisible export earnings on shipping. I do not know whether he is aware that the Chamber of Shipping annual report shows the receipts for freight on cross-voyages; the figure is shown as £332·6 million for the year 1959 as compared with £338·6 million for 1958. I need not pursue that matter further. It is an item of statistics that is well known. I should say also about it that part of the improvement in statistics that has taken place has been due to the cooperation that we have had from the Chamber of Shipping. That co-operation is reflected in the much more ample balance of payments statistics that we are able to show this year.
My hon. Friend then turned to the invisible earnings from overseas investments, which is a matter of great importance and is, admittedly, one of the matters on which we have a long way to go before we reach any sort of perfection, or even satisfaction, in our statistics. Due to the co-operation of industry, we have had great improvements of late concerning British overseas investment and the returns on it. As my hon. Friend said, that has given rise to a good deal of public discussion and a certain amount of invidious comparison. There is no harm in such discussion. It is one thing to get the statistics, but it is quite different to be happy about them when one gets them.
My hon. Friend said that disappointment had been expressed at the yield


on overseas investment compared with the yield obtained by overseas investment in this country. It is a fact that overseas investment in this country has been shown to be very profitable and there are, no doubt, reasons why our overseas investments are not so readily apparently profitable. For one thing, our industry often has to invest defensively overseas; that is to say, where it sees that it will lose its trade unless it builds a factory or makes certain investment in another country, it invests in another country for that reason. Therefore, for that reason, the returns may not be as great.
It is also, perhaps, possible that we have invested more in public enterprise abroad and in other forms of enterprise which are bound, in the earlier years at least, to show a lower return. But at any rate, I think, to look at the other side of the picture, that it is really a direct compliment to the underlying soundness and stability of the United Kingdom economy that foreign investors are willing to bring their capital here and are able to invest with such good results. The fact that they do bring it here shows that they are confident of being able to remit earnings and repatriate capital if need be.
There are no figures of the value of our direct investments overseas as a whole and they would indeed be extremely difficult to get. As the Committee on the working of the Monetary System under the chairmanship of Lord Radcliffe recognised, a census of overseas assets would be

an extremely formidable undertaking, much more so than in other countries. No other country has so long a history of overseas investment, and in no other are external and domestic finance so interwoven.
I would add that if such a census were taken it is doubtful whether anything other than book values could be obtained and it would be difficult to interpret those on assets widespread over long periods of time.
Nevertheless, it is possible to look on the increment of investment in 1958, 1959 and 1960, the last three years, and compare this with the corresponding increment of income. For United Kingdom investment overseas, the latter has been about £20 million, compared with a value for the former of £180 million; for overseas investment in the United Kingdom about £30 million compared with £125 million. All these figures, I should add, exclude oil and insurance.
I hope that I have been able to deal with some of the points my hon. Friend raised. We are improving our statistical methods all the time. We recognise the need for improvement. We are grateful for suggestions how our statistics can be improved and I shall be happy to discus with my hon. Friend these matters at greater length on another occasion. It is important, I would say, that we should not ask industry to provide further information unless we are certain that we can put it to really effective use.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.